With Pot Legal, Scientists Study Detection of Impaired Drivers 608
Hugh Pickens writes "A recent assessment by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, based on random roadside checks, found that 16.3% of all drivers nationwide at night were on various legal and illegal impairing drugs, half them high on marijuana. Now AP reports that with marijuana soon legal under state laws in Washington and Colorado, setting a standard comparable to blood-alcohol limits has sparked intense disagreement. Unlike portable breath tests for alcohol, there's no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent pot use. If scientists can't tell someone how much marijuana it will take for him or her to test over the threshold, how is the average pot user supposed to know? 'We've had decades of studies and experience with alcohol,' says Washington State Patrol spokesman Dan Coon. 'Marijuana is new, so it's going to take some time to figure out how the courts and prosecutors are going to handle it.' Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes. However, THC can remain in blood and saliva for highly variable times after the last use of the drug. Although the marijuana 'high' only lasts three to five hours, studies of heavy users in a locked hospital ward showed THC can be detected in the blood up to a week after they are abstinent, and the outer limit of detection time in saliva tests is not known. 'A lot of effort has gone into the study of drugged driving and marijuana, because that is the most prevalent drug, but we are not nearly to the point where we are with alcohol,' says Jeffrey P. Michael, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's impaired-driving director. 'We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.'"
Easy (Score:5, Funny)
Just ask the driver what snack they'd like from the police car.
Re:Easy (Score:4, Informative)
Although not particularly scientific, British TV show Fifth Gear tested stoned driving : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA7_ajF741I
Stoned VS drunk (Score:5, Funny)
Impaired drivers are easy enough to spot.
A drunk driver will run a stop sign
The stoned driver waits for it to turn green.
Re:Easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
A mere 80 or so years too late, of course. But better late than never.
Now if any state had the testicular fortitude to challenge them over their utterly unconstitutional use of the threat of withholding federal highway funds from states that failed to raise the drinking age to 21, we might see a restoration of sanity in that direction as well. Otherwise we might as well just ditch the constitution and abolish state and local government and get it all over with.
But getting the US government out of the marijuana game as the first step to getting it largely out of the drug game altogether might be good first steps to dismantling the current police state, and in the process saving perhaps 100 billion dollars (in all costs) nationwide. Maybe more -- drugs are roughly a half-trillion dollar business globally, and laundering drug money is a major mainstay of our banking system and creates a veritable shadow government with a steady stream of untaxed, illegal income that produces compounded wealth and disproportionate power for those that are involved.
It also opens up the states that legalize it to entirely new (taxable, now legitimate) industries -- not just recreational pot but an entire spectrum of hemp-derived products that are difficult to impossible to produce at this time. The hemp plant was enormously useful before it was made illegal, and to some extent was made illegal because it was so useful. I wish NC would follow in CO and WA's footsteps, because hemp would make an ideal cash crop to replace tobacco (the real "killer drug" of the US).
rgb
Re:Easy (Score:5, Informative)
Now if any state had the testicular fortitude to challenge them over their utterly unconstitutional use of the threat of withholding federal highway funds from states that failed to raise the drinking age to 21, we might see a restoration of sanity in that direction as well.
A state did challenge the federal government over that very thing. It lost [wikipedia.org]. The decision was 7-2, and with the current makeup of the Court it's unlikely that it would hear a similar case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But getting the US government out of the marijuana game as the first step...
Then we have to keep the UN from meddling [boston.com]...
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
> Now if any state had the testicular fortitude to challenge them over their utterly unconstitutional use of the threat
> of withholding federal highway funds from states that failed to raise the drinking age to 21,
As another poster pointed out: it already happened and they lost.
The problem is simple: The federal government has the power to levy an income tax all citizens without any real accountability. Thus, they can just 'steal' tax money from a state by raising taxes and keeping the increased revenue (unless you behave). Sure, the state _could_ levy its own transportation taxes and eschew the federal money, but now its people are getting double taxed and not seeing the benefits of half of it. As a result people leave, protest, etc. The only real ability to allow states the ability to control the drinking age it to change the federal law, unfortunately. (Or maybe an amendment prohibiting redistribution of money to the states?)
Anyways, another challenge would almost certainly go down in flames: SCOTUS already hinted (IIRC) that they're okay with the 'Obamacare' no-health-insurance penalty if it's constructed as a tax, so they're probably okay with the general idea of the federal government coercing behavior with taxation. I'm looking forward to our free speech tax.
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Pot is still ILLEGAL everywhere that the United States federal government has jurisdiction. Don't make a stupid mistake, and get busted because you THINK that pot is legal.
What the new state laws amount to, is the states have told the feds, "We're not going to enforce your stupid laws for you, and we're turning a blind eye unless someone is really being stupid."
Re:Easy (Score:4, Informative)
If you are caught in public it's like a $100 fine on the civil side, not criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
An in other areas of the U.S. they have moved enforcement from criminal to civil. Here in RI you can have up to an ounce, you can't smoke in public, and they actually license growers. It's all very quiet of course but it exists.
If you are caught in public it's like a $100 fine on the civil side, not criminal.
I hate the term "decriminalization" and wish it would go away, because it leads to confusion like this.
In RI and MA, the penalty for marijuana possession is now only a fine (no jail time or arrest). Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When the 10th Amendment was ratified. ;-) (half serious)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Informative)
There's a difference.
Re:Easy (Score:4, Informative)
In my state, marijuana is "decriminalized." I am waiting for the day that it is "legalized," and I have been waiting for years. I never thought I would see even one state legalize it. Hopefully it won't take too much longer for the rest of the states to catch on.
Anyway... in my state there are no stores that are legally allowed to sell marijuana, so you can't get it legally in any way, shape or form. You are breaking the law just by buying it, and not paying taxes (double whammy!). You're not even allowed to grow it yourself to make up for this and avoid the drug dealers, and if you get caught with any amount of plant material or any number of plants it will be confiscated (probably for the police to smoke themselves). Get caught with a pipe, bong or any other kind of "drug paraphernalia" and it will also be taken away. You may not be labeled a criminal, but you will still likely be penalized by the state, in addition to them taking all your shit that they can find either on you, on or in your property, or generally on the scene.
By contrast, Colorado is supposedly going to not only allow the drug to be regulated, taxed and sold in stores like any other legitimate commercial good (to people of a certain age, obviously), but it's even going to allow people to grow up to six cannabis plants and own/possess up to a certain amount of dried plant material/marijuana itself. Chances are, unless you're suspected of drug trafficking or you're doing something really stupid (like driving with a joint in your hand), the police won't take anything away from you, and they might or might not just try to find something else to bust you for instead. That beats the living fuck out of Ohio, in which--honestly--it might as well still just be considered illegal here. I don't know about Washington's exact planned laws, but they're legalizing it too, so no doubt it will be similar.
No matter what, decriminalized, legalized, whatever--this only covers personal use and possession of small amounts; you can't have, say, several ounces on you or dozens of plants, or you'll immediately be suspected of drug trafficking and be slapped with some pretty hefty fines and other penalties, probably including jail time and labeled a felon if you have enough. The real difference is the complete lack of penalty as long as you stay within the limits of the law where it is legalized, as well as the fact that you don't have to go to drug dealers in the black market and buy it illegally just to obtain it.
Re:Easy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Decriminalization removes criminal penalties, like jail and record keeping of you being convicted of having drugs. It can still be illegal, but just a minor fine or penalty. Legalization removes all legal penalties.
Perhaps more importantly, legalization provides a framework for the legal *sale* of weed, in the same way booze has a legal framework for its sale. You don't get that with decriminalization.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. Decriminalization can also refer to changing marijuana possession from a crime (i.e., you go to jail) to an infraction (i.e., you pay a small fine). It can be the difference between, say, a felony and a parking ticket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Easy (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, small amounts of marijuana are actually LEGAL (not just non-criminal) -- at least according to state law.
Not exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
Drug posession and use were decriminalized in Mexico (where I live) in 2009. *All* drugs. However, growing and selling them is not legal, and is criminal. What does this mean?
If I am found carrying or smoking a pot cigarrette (or injecting a heroine dose, or whatever), I am not a criminal — I might be a candidate for psychiatric help at some institutions, yes (most probably if I'm a reincident), but not going to jail.
If I have 60 pot plants at home, i am not only doing something illegal, but a criminal offense.
If I have over the allowed dose for personal use, I am (probably?) trying to sell it, and it is a crime.
Not that our situation is ideal. Far from it. I believe full legalization is the only way out. But at least, it shifts the penalization to the real wrongdoers in our current situation.
Re: (Score:3)
You got Cheetos all over your breath, son. You been smoking weed tonight?
Re:Easy (Score:4, Funny)
Drunk people give themselves away when they vomit on the cop's shoes.
Stoned people? "Are you going to finish that doughnut officer?"
Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)
You know nothing about stoners.
They don't sit there for a long time because their sense of time is distorted. They sit there because they aren't paying attention to the light itself and are paying attention to other things in the environment around them.
In reality, the red light turning green is almost but not quiet the LEAST important thing about driving. If you argued running red lights you might have something, except that doesn't happen either.
Doctors stoned on pot don't scare me even a little bit, you'll know from his/her actions if they are incapable of doing their job. I'm far more afraid of someone being fucked up on an opiate like Vicodine than pot. If you knew anything about the two you would be too. The opiate may not show its symptoms and still cause serious mental effects. Pot on the other hand makes it obvious, and when it doesn't ... it doesn't, and its not that big of a deal.
You don't need a drug test to tell if a pothead is incompetent. If you pull him over because of his bad driving, thats enough. Same applies to alcohol for that matter. The tests are just there to cover cops asses. The requirements for a test are there to prevent cops from abusing the illegal nature of it. In both cases, determining if someone shouldn't be doing something because they are impaired is done WITHOUT a test. The test is just to prevent bad people (overzealous cops and lawyers representing guilty) from abusing otherwise perfectly legitimate methods of accomplishing a task.
I agree that impairment is not acceptable in many situations, but you have absolutely no idea what causes that impairment, you're just parroting someone elses statements.
Re: (Score:3)
"Hashish, often known as 'hash', is a cannabis preparation composed of compressed and/or purified preparations of stalked resin glands, called trichomes, collected from the unfertilized buds of the cannabis plant. It contains the same active ingredients—such as THC and other cannabinoids—but in higher concentrations than unsifted buds or leaves." source [wikipedia.org]
You will not find a seller willing to offer hash for the s
Field Sobriety Test (Score:3, Insightful)
You just do the same thing that cops do when the driver refuses the breath test... a Field Sobriety Test.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or just pay attention to what's happening in the rest of the world:
"Rather than blowing into a breathalyser, drivers will be asked to provide a saliva sample by placing a small absorbent pad on their tongue for a few seconds. The Securetec Drugwipe II Twin device is supposed to take about five minutes." (In Victoria, another test is mentioned in the enabling legislation, called Cozart RapiScan.)
"Saliva testing only shows up marijuana usage in the last four to five hours, but 24 hours for all the other drugs
Re: (Score:3)
"Saliva testing only shows up marijuana usage in the last four to five hours, but 24 hours for all the other drugs, including amphetamines (speed), opiates (heroin, morphine, codeine), cocaine, benzodiazepine (valium and so on) and THC (cannabis). The advantages of saliva over urine testing are the speed of obtaining results (10 minutes versus several days) and it is less invasive.
Or so says the sales literature.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's absolutely not true, saliva testing is almost identical to a urine sample, meaning 2 weeks to a month to get a clean test. Only difference is that saliva testing is more accurate i believe. They already do mouth swabs for probation and stuff, why would they only want to know if the user did it in the past 5 hours? And FYI: THC is in marijuana, so i'm not quite sure how THC ends up on the 24 hour list and marijuana is on the 5 hour list. Misinformation at its best right here folks
Re:Field Sobriety Test (Score:5, Informative)
While on the subject, does anyone have the source for this quote? "Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" I find it doubtful and would like to read the methodology. In my experience impairment from marijuana use in the absence of other substances impairs driving very little. There are some issues with concentration and alertness but in most people it also has the effect of lowering their speed and therefore I find it hard to believe the crashes are fatal so often. Unless they pull out in front of a speeding driver or something. Of course this is all speculation based on personal experience, hence why I want to read the study referred to in the summary. It isn't mentioned in tfa either in those words.
Re:Field Sobriety Test (Score:4, Informative)
Role of Cannabis in Motor Vehicle Crashes, Michael N. Bates and Tony A. Blakely 1999
Re:Field Sobriety Test (Score:5, Informative)
In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion.
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf [oxfordjournals.org]
There are three points at the end of this paper:
"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"
1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them.
2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear.
3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.
Re:Field Sobriety Test (Score:5, Interesting)
Bear in mind also that the normal risk of fatal crashes is low, so doubling it is doubling a number very near zero as it is.
Contrast that with alcohol (quote from a 1991 NIH article):
"Based on driver fatalities in single-vehicle crashes, it was estimated that each 0.02 percentage increase in the BAC of a driver with non-zero BAC nearly doubles the risk of being in a fatal crash."
That is probably not quite a beer's worth of alcohol for most body weights. So to put it another way, somebody who smokes pot while driving -- not "before", but during (a thing that in my youth I did with remarkable frequency) -- is roughly as impaired as if they had had just consumed a single beer. At those levels one does have to wonder about the error bars in the study -- statistically resolving one near-zero from another near-zero is actually remarkably difficult and requires ever so many samples and a totally unbiased sampling scheme with a complete lack of confounding variables -- so your assertion that the actual risk might even go down in those that aren't smoking pot and drinking a beer (where the latter is also difficult to detect and also doubles your risk all by itself) is not without possible merit.
Again from the article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1875701 [nih.gov]:
"At BACs in the 0.05-0.09 percent range, the likelihood of a crash was at least nine times greater than at zero BAC for all age groups. Younger drivers with BACs in the 0.05-0.09 range had higher relative risks than older drivers, and females had higher relative risks than males. At very high BACs (at or above 0.15 percent), the risk of crashing was 300 to 600 times the risk at zero or near-zero BACs."
Note that at BAC's that are still in the legal range in most states, single car fatalities are nearly an order of magnitude greater than the single "doubling" of risk for immediate use of marijuana. That strongly suggests that the best thing to do about "impairment" from marijuana is -- ignore it, or as suggested above, use a field sobriety test, not a blood or saliva test. It is more or less irrelevant to driving skill. I would say (again, based on extensive experience) that this is not entirely true -- one can eat or smoke enough, potent enough, marijuana that driving is ill-advised, but in those cases field sobriety tests would be nearly impossible to pass as well. But it is actually somewhat difficult to get that stoned, and most pot smokers that I knew didn't want to drive when they were -- too scary.
But the simplest proofs are this. Whether or not it is legal, smoking pot and driving has been nearly universal forever among those that smoke pot. Most states are utterly unable to test for it, yet estimates of prevalence of usage (almost certainly low) suggest that anywhere up to 1/3 or 1/2 of people in certain age ranges at least occasionally smoke. Yet there is no positive association with this same group being a high risk on the road, outside of its tendency to drink. Alcohol is indeed a dangerous substance when it comes to driving, for obvious reasons, even for relatively small amounts. Pot is not, not until consumption is at extreme levels.
The last thing that confounds this is age. The distribution of fatal and non-fatal accidents with age is quite scary. A stoned 40 year old -- I mean a seriously wasted 40 year old stoner -- with a risk of accident 3 times his age-linked norm -- is a safer driver than a stone cold sober 19 year old. "Silverbacks" -- drivers on the high side of 75, where one's eyesight, hearing, and brain are all breaking down -- are safer still. Why? Because they drive (sober or not) carefully, and in particular far more conservatively than younger risk taking overconfident drivers. I'm living through my own sons' driving experience -- one at age 17 has his first car, now multiply scarred from driving it a whole month. One now 22, who at 18 took his eyes off of the road
Re: (Score:3)
Washington and Colorado legalized possession of small amounts, without penalty. I don't know all the details of the Colorado law offhand, but in Washington sales are also legalized. Both states already had medical marijuana, this is legalization for recreational use. At least one other state legalized medical marijuana in the same election.
Re: (Score:3)
Small correction: voters in Colorado approved marijuana for medical use back in 2000, well before the previous election cycle. A friend of mine out there had a roommate at the time with brain cancer, who got approved for medical marijuana to help suppress chemo side effects.
At the time, there was nowhere you could buy marijuana in Colorado, though, so my friend and his roommate had to grow it themselves. He also made sure to keep his roommate's certificate saying that he'd been approved easily accessibl
Re:Field Sobriety Test (Score:5, Insightful)
marijuana use in the absence of other substances impairs driving very little
Yeah, my stoner roommate used to say shit like that too. Of course, he also claimed it helped him study, but unless one considers watching the Cartoon Network all day "studying" then I never saw any evidence of it. And, while I never was a full-time stoner myself, I did smoke enough to know that I sure as shit wouldn't have felt comfortable driving on it (or doing anything else that required concentration).
Of course, I'm sure the stoner brigade can produce a plethora of studies claiming that weed is a fucking miracle cure-all with no downsides whatsoever, written by the same kind of biased researchers that produce studies showing that burning shit-tons of coal is great for the environment.
So your "gut feeling" is more relevant than peer-reviewed studies because you "feel" that the researchers are biased? Please refute the data with data, not emotional reactions to the "stoner brigade". For example, here is a study on driving under the influence of Cannabis that cites several other studies, if you have a problem with the data please point out the problem instead of resorting to logical fallacies.
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/222.full.pdf [oxfordjournals.org]
Re:Field Sobriety Test (Score:4, Informative)
24 hours for all the other drugs, including amphetamines
Considering the fact that amphetamine (e.g. Adderall) affects a person's system for about four hours, I fail to see how this is a good thing. I also fail to see how it can be a good thing given the large number of people who use amphetamines legally, as prescribed by a doctor. Therapeutic doses of amphetamines will improve a person's ability to drive, so I have to wonder why we would even be concerned about people driving under the influence of amphetamines.
24 hours for all the other drugs, ... and THC
THC is the drug in marijuana, so you must be mistaken (or this is a scam).
Re: (Score:3)
In theory, that would be the way to go.
In practice, it leaves WAY too much discretion in the hands of the cop who pulls you over. He gets to act as judge and jury based on his evaluation of your performance of whatever "tests" he decides to administer.
An objective, testable standard is needed, similar to what we have for alcohol (0.08% BAC in most states). Exactly WHERE that level is set is subject to debate, of course. The acceptable BAC level has been getting pushed lower and lower in recent years, perha
Re: (Score:2)
I have friends who train some pretty advanced Parkour and freerunning while high.. and in fact I still have decent balance these days even when I'm drunk (I can still balance fine along a half-inch wide railing after having say the equivalent of 5 beers), likewise from all the Parkour training.. so testing people's balance and such isn't a very precise measure IMO.
It's really interesting that pot is being legalised. It actually makes me think that the US political system is working as it should in some rega
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actual Detection of Impared Drivers (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this is going to be a really odd way to detect impared drivers as far as people think but it is quite imperical and correct. You simply have the person do a coordination test with a video game type device. Impared drivers will show up whatever the reason. This can also be determined by blink rate and by detection of eye movements. It can be done very rapidly and has been in use by some municipal bus systems for some time with quite spectacular reductions in accidents. In fact this could be built into cars and we could have the car simply park if the driver is impared. (WOW! No arrest needed!) How about this wild idea. Skipping the police and stopping filling our jails and stopping all the fines etc while achieving the goal of public safety. It detects all types of imparement and doesn't bother wasting time on any other issue. Sleepy is detected too.
This is going to get to be a moot point shortly as the cars will have things like advanced adaptive cruise control that essentially drives the car. How about Google's self driving car etc. I think we are going to ban driving of cars by humans very shortly as they simply are the most dangerous part of the car driving system. You know the NUT behind the wheel is the most dangerous part of the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actual Detection of Impared Drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? If you for whatever reason aren't capable of driving a vehicle, then you shouldn't be allowed to, no matter the reason. Design the test in such a way that it tests for skills needed to drive a vehicle, kind of like a field driver's exam. Then stop worrying about how much pot is too much and start concentrating on what skills are actually needed to drive. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
if you use that as your measurement stick, probably 90% of 'moms with kids' would fail the 'are you distraction free enough to drive?' test.
we all know this is true, too. soccer moms scare me WAY more than drunks or any other intoxicated driver does. the thing is, drunks know they are drunk (usually) and so they at least try to be careful. moms, otoh, think things are perfectly fine even though little johnny is screaming his head off in the back seat and slapping his sister suzie. each time the mom turn
Re:Actual Detection of Impared Drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
All three of these responses are spot-on. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.
Re:Actual Detection of Impared Drivers (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes i have driven around much lately, although not on a US road. But your post underlines my point really. If you are not capable of driving the vehicle you're in, then you should not be allowed to. I don't care if it is because you're 90 and have forgotten how to, or you're drunk of your ass.
I completely agree with you that there are other problems in traffic than what can be caught on a field administered test, but that is what the patrol cars are for. All I'm saying is don't go after the people high as kites only, target everyone not capable of driving.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they're in a normal state for them and they're still failing an impairment test, then they quite simply shouldn't be allowed to drive. If your reactions are normally that bad, or your perception is that inadequate, you're a danger to other people on the road. Sucks to be you, but it'll reduce the number of accidents on the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, silly beanie, video game tests won't work, not for somebody who has "practiced" playing video games high (which would very likely be everybody under the age of 30 and a lot of people older than that).
Back in the days when I used to get high daily I also used to play pinball and ping pong and other games involving nearly instantaneous reflexes in order to succeed. I was truly excellent at both, high. I played the best evening of ping pong in my life high one night, with a friend who was also high. We
Re: (Score:3)
Except that you can practice. State learning matters. If somebody DOES drive all the time high, they very likely learn to compensate, but it is those first few times... and too many people would have lots of state learning on "video games". It would need to be a test nobody is likely to be able to practice on ahead of time.
Perhaps a road simulator video game. That would actually make sense. If they can't drive a video simulator well enough to avoid simple road circumstances that might lead to a crash,
Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is my personal anecdote.
I've been driving high nearly every day for almost 20 years, commuting at least 100 miles a day for 17 of those. I have never been in an accident & my last ticket (41 in a 30) was over 8 years ago.
I don't drink & drive at all, that shit is dangerous.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I saying your impaired? No... but there are some people who can't handle themselves and aren't aware that they are not in full control of their faculties.
I just really hope fork lift drivers in the big box hardware stores are careful and don't use right before their shift. However, I expect to see accidents here. I'm glad this has been legalized in those states but hopefully this is enjoyed responsibly.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure as you well know.. different people are affected in different manners by THC consumption.
This is something more people need to pay attention to. I myself for example after only one or two puffs will feel seasick, dry mouth, confused, and ready to vomit (if I have one or two more, I will vomit). After that, I pretty much want to curl up, sleep and get rid of the nastiness going on in my brain. Obviously, I gave up trying it after four or five times of the same effects (friends tried to tell me that it's like that for everyone the first time, but gets more fun on subsequent uses - for me, it d
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you puritans should just not use it instead of trying to prevent me from using what for me is a working anti-depressant.
Ummm... actually, I never said anything about it being bad to legalise it or wanting to punish users or anything like that - just that it has really negative effects on me.
For reference, I'm strongly in favour of legalisation of all substances that have limited to no harmful effects on the user; and then awareness campaigns and education in place to encourage people to use it responsibly if they do choose to use it at all (similar to alcohol (which I absolutely acknowledge shouldn't have been legal to begin
Re: (Score:3)
I think it was his paranoia kicking in.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
I just really hope fork lift drivers in the big box hardware stores are careful and don't use right before their shift.
I guarantee you, every warehouse worker that wants to be stoned on the job is already stoned on the job.
Good. Start testing the correct thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This. If you can't test for the drug, test for reactions. That's cheap, easy and relatively portable. If a person fails the test, then take a blood sample.
Re:Good. Start testing the correct thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
This. Right now if someone hits and kills a pedestrian, it's called an "accident" and they go free if they're sober - but they go to jail for many years if they had a drink. It doesn't matter that incompetent driving caused the death - the only time a driver is punished appropriately is when they had a drink.
A test for competency would also get a lot of older drivers who cannot drive safely any more off the road.
Re:Good. Start testing the correct thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of the circumstances, we have a personal responsibility to not put others in danger with our actions. Vehicles are multi-thousand pound missiles, heavy machinery easily capable of severely injuring and killing other people; if you're too tired to operate one safely, there's really no excuse for doing so.
Driving is entirely a convenience, and certainly not a right or a requirement. A responsible adult can (and should) plan around the reality of not being able to drive; 'working 20 hours' isn't an excuse, it's a situation that you're dealt with and need to handle, and driving while being tired enough to be impaired is a personal choice.
Why not factor in actual research? (Score:5, Informative)
According to NORML [norml.org], what basically happens when someone is driving while on marijuana is that while they're somewhat impaired, they also drive more cautiously and leave more space around them. The net effect is that while they're annoying, they aren't all that dangerous.
By contrast, when someone is driving drunk, they tend to be both impaired and reckless. The net effect is that thousands of people each year are killed by drunk drivers.
Re:Why not factor in actual research? (Score:5, Informative)
For comparison texting is much worse, and distraction and fatigue produce similar results. We could have the computer on a car detect impairment based on driver response however. But that too raises questions.
It is the mechanization problem that has been one of the economic factors behind drug criminalization for the better part of a century, besides, of course, the prison-industrial complex being profitable and being a good place to warehouse psychopaths and feed into common racism and fear of crime.
Re: (Score:3)
the prison-industrial complex being profitable
That is only really an issue in the US with for-profit prison systems. In most of the rest of the world, sending someone to prison is a last, expensive resort.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that combining pot and alcohol is much more impairing than just using one or the other, when you combine almost any drug with alcohol the effect tends to be extreme impairment. A couple beers and a couple Vicoden is a lot worse than several beers, for example.
Regardless, this only highlights how BAC is a poor determinant for impairment. Like you mention, fatigue tends to be worse than drunkenness. I think if a person can't pass a field sobriety test because of fatigue they should be given the
Re: (Score:3)
So, instead of developing a suite of testing tools for each new and exciting drug that hits the market (black or pharmacy) why not come up with a system that tests actual impairment? I would think a simple device that tests reaction time, decision making, and coordination would be enough to consistently identify people driving impaired by anything. Then give the same tests at the DMV with more stringent requirements each time a person renews (most places every 5 years). And yes, that would catch people i
Re: (Score:3)
I once saw a documentary where some people did a driving test while baked, they drove exactly like every single person does in my area. Slow, hesitant, uber-cautious.
Re: (Score:3)
Annoying drivers are among the most dangerous. They make everyone around them drive more recklessly.
Hey, is that you Dick Dastardly?
Re:Why not factor in actual research? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell are you talking about? There's decades of research on impairment caused by cannabis. We've been fighting a war on the drug for decades, and the prohibitionists have been looking for any possible harm they could blame it for. There's lots of research out there on how Cannabis affects driving ability, and it paints a very consistent picture. Cannabis is impairing, but only slightly, and it's well within the impairment we tolerate with other substances. It takes extreme amounts of THC to impair someone as much as a .08 BAC, for example.
That's what the actual research shows. It's favorable to cannabis. And that's why the director of the NHTSA is playing dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
That is pure bullshit, driving too slowly and over-cautiously can cause accidents just as much as speeding and recklessness.
No, they definitely don't. They cause people driving recklessly to cause accidents, which is not at all the same thing. A person driving safely will not have an issue with someone else driving safely, but slower. Feel free to break out the tired old highway scenario, I'm ready for it.
Drug and alcohol use and driving (Score:3)
The first-ever “National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers”, conducted by NHTSA, found that 16.3 percent of nighttime drivers were drug-positive, with marijuana (THC) at (8.6 percent) being the most commonly detected drug.
and
In fall 2010, six cities in California (Anaheim, Bakersfield, Eureka, Fresno, San Rafael, and Torrance) conducted nighttime weekend “voluntary” roadside surveys primarily to gather data on marijuana use among nighttime drivers. The results were that 8.4 percent of the drivers providing oral fluid were positive for marijuana and 7.6 percent of the breath tested drivers tested positive for some amount of alcohol.
These are two different surveys, but the second one shows a slightly different picture than "half them high on marijuana". 8.4% in this study showed some presence of marijuana in their saliva. From the summary, I gather that all that really means is that 8.4% had smoked pot some time in the last couple weeks. 7.6% had had some amount of alcohol still detectable in their breath, although that includes people with a trace amount, well under the legal limit. So, I'm not going to adjust my general expectations of other drivers to think that one in every 6 drivers at night is drunk and/or high.
Difficult (Score:2)
In some places (parts of Australia for example) the law simply says you aren't allowed to drive and have any trace of THC in your hair/saliva/blood. This works because the drug is already outlawed. However, it's not fair to say that the drug is legal, but you aren't allowed to use it within a week (or whatever) of driving.
However, as with alcohol, the problem isn't the numbers, it's the impairment. With alcohol now, the law doesn't even care about impairment. If your blood alcohol level (as measured by a ma
Faulty assumption (Score:2)
Pot is very dangerous, and must be controlled (Score:3)
Oh dear, that's almost as dangerous as dialing a phone [vt.edu].
Given how the police have broad surveillance powers to correlate cell phone logs against the mandatory GPS units installed in our cars in order to determine if we were dialing while driving, it is not unreasonable that we demand they have similar powers over knowing when pot smokers inhale their illicitly legal drug.
Re: (Score:3)
Given how the police have broad surveillance powers to correlate cell phone logs against the mandatory GPS units installed in our cars in order to determine if we were dialing while driving, it is not unreasonable that we demand they have similar powers over knowing when pot smokers inhale their illicitly legal drug.
Yes it is. Instead, we should demand that they do not have those broad surveillance powers. Don't be a henchman.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, texting while driving - Illegal, socially frowned upon, and done anyway, yet no cop wants to throw you to the grown and send you to rape prison over it.
It's amazing how sensible the laws can be when they aren't attached to ulterior motives and moral panic.
Note that the risk of accident while text messaging is 20+ times higher than normal, about that of someone who is sloppy drunk. My sarcastic police state for controlling cell phone use while driving should be real if the MADD and DARE crowd were consis
BAC BS (Score:2)
Instead of worrying about tolerances and equivalent BAC levels, just come up with a field sobriety test that can detect if someone is too impaired to drive. The problem with a pot BAC is that people react differently to THC. One person might throw up and become stoned from a few good hits while another may feel little to noting at all from the same dose.
I have a friend who has two jobs, goes to school for his bachelors degree, has a wife and a new-born son. When I asked him how he copes he replied: "Copious
Re: (Score:3)
I have a friend who has two jobs, goes to school for his bachelors degree, has a wife and a new-born son. When I asked him how he copes he replied: "Copious amount of marijuana, bro." He smokes when he wakes up, smokes on his drive in to work, smokes during lunch, smokes on his way to night classes or his second job and a few hits at night before bed.
Similarly, I have known several people who were functioning alcoholics. What exactly does this prove?
Not quite true... (Score:2)
Sorry guys, but we don't know what level of alcohol actually makes people too impaired to safely drive, either. Yes, we have a hell of a lot better idea than with THC, but put bluntly, some people can function better at
I'm calling Shenanigans here... (Score:3)
2 - the numbers are probably skewed in the way of cannabis because the US cannot lose any wars. And the war on drugs, is a war. So this is just a continuation of the scare tactics we've seen all too much.
3 - I know pharmacists. They say at least 50% of the population is on lortabs, percocets, etc... Stuff with hydrocodon and oxycodone. It could be easy to say, that chances are if you're reading this, you have a prescription.
Bottom line, the study is flawed and just a continuation of scare tactics IMVHO.
This is all I've been asking for... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad to know that there is so much room for a middle ground in slashdot political discussion...
Agendas and Liars Go Together (Score:3)
Driving within three hours of smoking pot is associated with a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes.
with:
'We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.'"
One of those two statements HAS to be a lie.
Personally, I have NEVER heard of a story where Marijuana "impairment" alone has been implicated as the causal factor in any traffic fatality.
And that "one week" figure is also completely bogus. Even a drugstore urine test can detect Marijuana use for around 30 days.
There have been no reputable studies that show that driving while high on pot is significantly more dangerous than driving while "sober". Any study of accidents where Marijuana use was also detected would be hard-pressed to find that the pot "impairment" was the cause. But watch the fake statistics start to pile in, by "scientists" looking for their next "Grant-Welfare" money, as the NIH helps the Federal Government "make the case against pot".
Mark my words.
Re:Agendas and Liars Go Together (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the problem is that every time someone's been in a crash and pot was found on them or they tested positive for pot at the hospital, the authorities "associated" pot with the crash. This is a classic mix up of correlation and causation. They don't realize that pot is found on a lot of people who are involved in crashes because it's so ubiquitous, not because it actually causes people to wreck.
They already have a test (Score:3)
In other news... (Score:3)
Colorado State Police have announced that they plan to start aggressively enforcing minimum speed limits...
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem solved?
Yes actually.
You seem to be under the assumption that if we don't test specifically for Drug A, Drug B, Drug C, etc, we are somehow giving people permission to drive while impaired by those drugs. And I cannot see how that is the case. Can't cops still pull you over and charge you with "driving erratically" or whatever they call it when you can't stay in your lane, roll through stop signs, ignore traffic lights, etc?
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it should be pretty easy. Video cameras in police cars are pretty much ubiquitous. If you're wandering, going too fast / too slow or whatever and the policeman (or a citizen with the same tech) gets a video of the car with you getting out of it - you're driving impaired. It doesn't really make a difference if it's due to marijuana or benadryl - you shouldn't be driving.
Re: (Score:3)
But, in the summary, it said it could be detected a week after imbibing. So guy smokes pot and then, five days later, is pulled over by a cop. The cop suspects him of being under the influence (was driving erratically for some reason or perhaps the cop is just stereotyping based on what the guy looks like) so administers the test. This shows a small amount of THC in his system and he's arrested of driving under the influence (zero tolerance). However, he hasn't smoked any pot at all in a few days and is
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume that all impairment fades with the high?
You need to make a proper study. I see the ad in a newspaper: "A scientific team looks for people willing to get high for money." :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Very good point. I too am in favor of decriminalization but not legalization. Most people that don't smoke pot today that actually want to smoke it don't because of employment concerns. It's difficult nowadays to find a job that pays a decent wage that doesn't drug test. I know many people that I work with that talk about pot and how they'd like to smoke it but can't take a chance on losing their job. Note they didn't even mention the law.
Re: (Score:3)
In most of the U.S., you can pretty much fire someone for just about anything (short of gender, race, or religion).
Re: (Score:2)
the currently known tests do not test for high, impairment or being under the influence. They test whether there is THC in the blood or saliva. This is the reason why this test is not used in the Netherlands. The law clearly states that driving under the influence of marihuana is not allowed, but that is not something these tests can show.
standard sobriety test is too objective (Score:3)
What "threshold"? If pot really has such an impairment effect, then why not just use the standard sobriety test.
There is no impartial field (standard) sobriety test. It is up to the officer administering the test to both administer the test and interpret the results. It is very easy to skew or mangle this, on purpose or otherwise. When you have something that independently produces a number, you have an impartial result.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There are tons of other legal prescription medication that people take that will fuck them up more then pot when it comes to being able to drive a car. Are we stopping people for that?
We should be.