39 ms·

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 sudd

by kdamken 10y ago

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've never smoked pot, you don't understand how it feels and affects your thinking/reactions/perception of time and reality. If you smoke pot everyday, it may affect you less due to tolerance, but it's still affecting you, much like a functional alcoholic. I have nothing against usage and I strongly encourage legalization, but I don't think it's okay to pretend that it's safe to get high and go driving.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
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. Part of the issue is that public transportation lacking in a lot of parts of the country. Some folks just don't have options, even things like Uber, and if you live just slightly out of the way, such things wind up costing even more money. If you are drunk, you can get arrested in some places (indiana) for walking home - instant public intoxication charge. 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.
- squidfood 10y ago
  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).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > 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. Not sure that's true: if the alcohol was still in your blood that long, it would still be affecting you and impairing function.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    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.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      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.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        Maybe there's a key distinction between THC levels in the blood and bioavailable THC. THC is extremely lipophilic, so it might get trapped for degradation.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  > These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging. Lack of transportation, other options or the public intoxication charges should not and cannot ever be an acceptable reason for driving while impaired. If you indulge, don't drive. Period. There is no option B. The only acceptable solution, if you have to get behind a wheel and drive, is to abstain from any impairing consumption.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >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).
  - joesmo 10y ago
    "If you're so drunk that you'd get pulled over as a pedestrian, then you most certainly should not be driving." Or you could just be walking while black (or hispanic, etc.).
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      Are you really blaming racism for DUIs?
      - selectodude 10y ago
        I think he's blaming racism for public intox.
      - joesmo 10y ago
        No, I'm saying that you don't have to be visibly drunk to be stopped by police, especially if you're a minority.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    I don't think you understand. If you are legally drunk - blow a .08 on the test - you can get a public intoxication charge. It is that simple. All that takes is living out of town and walking down the main route to your house and someone stopping and smelling alcohol. It is great to put that theoretical thing in place. But people do, occasionally, mess up. I rarely went to bars because of transportation - others, not so much. Alcohol impairs judgement as, and if the options aren't there and easy to use, it is more likely that folks will drive drunk.
tetrep 10y ago
> I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. The keyword here is "impaired." It doesn't just have to involve drugs, being exhausted and attempting to drive is also very dangerous. Not just for you, but for everyone else on/near the road.
- odonnellryan 10y ago
  This is true, don't immediately after waking up, when very tired, etc..
dubcanada 10y ago
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 only thing that is different between that and random over the counter medication is one is called pot.
- NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
  how about angry - really really really angry.. that is not a good way to drive.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  People really, really shouldn't be driving under those conditions, either.
- kdamken 10y ago
  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 road for a few moments (which is admittedly still crazy dangerous). If you drive stoned - you're driving less safely the entire time you're driving. The combination of the two is even worse. - Having a heart condition doesn't mean you're going to necessarily have a heart attack every time you drive - there's just a higher risk that something might happen. Even in that case, you may be able to stop/pull over. Once again, if you drive stoned - you're driving less safely the entire time you're driving. - You can have a backup pair of glasses, you can pull over, etc. But my main point - just because there are other things that can make the already insanely dangerous activity of driving more risky, doesn't make driving high less bad.
  - jerkstate 10y ago
TallGuyShort 10y ago
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.
scottious 10y ago
> but I don't think it's okay to pretend that it's safe to get high and go driving. I agree, but I also think it's more nuanced than that. Sure, at the extremes you're totally right. Though take a daily smoker who doses themselves with a predictable and regular amount... that person is very likely not impaired, or at least not more impaired than somebody who's behind the wheel while they're tired. I think the reality is very complicated... and that makes accurate laws really hard to create. It certainly is easier to just say "you can't have any THC in your body while you're driving"... but I don't agree with that and I don't have a better suggestion honestly.
three14 10y ago
The article didn't say that it's safe at all - just that the measurement of THC in the blood doesn't tell you if someone is impaired. If someone knows they are high, they're probably at much more risk than the people with THC in their blood discussed in the article.
serge2k 10y ago
> I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired I don't know about that, I think the people who want to do that will just find another excuse. Especially potheads, who seem to be unable to acknowledge that anything exists in this world that isn't helped by pot. Driving? probably better if you do while high. Seizures? Pot is now the only accepted option man. Broken back? Here have a pot brownie.
gnaritas 10y ago
You're incorrect and you're incorrectly equating pot to alcohol as if the effects were remotely similar, they are not. > And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving. That means users who are too high to drive know it, and don't. It also means you can drive high as long as you're not too high without adversely affecting safety. Pot is not alcohol, it does not belong in that mold and there's absolutely no reason to single it out of the multitude of other things that can impair driving. Alcohol is a special case precisely because it impairs your judgement.
norea-armozel 10y ago
Well I can say for certain when I take certain allergy meds I know I can't drive for crap. So I usually stay in. And when at work I just deal with the allergies as is since I have a long commute home since the last time I tried driving on allergy meds made it hard to concentrate. So, I can imagine it's not much better driving high on pot.
Shivetya 10y ago
Impaired has meaning, there might be different levels of impairment and that is what worries me most. People vastly over estimate their driving skills when sober. Which by the way, you ever want to see just how good you are in reality, go do one of the racing related or defensive driving course. Ouch.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
evo_9 10y ago
I disagree. Most days when I get out of work the first thing I do is smoke with my Pax2 as I walk to my car. I then drive home 'high'. I've done this most of my adult life. Smoking Pot and driving has zero negative effects on my driving. In fact, just as the article points out, I am more likely to drive more safely and take it easy. Also, for what its worth, there are two types of strains - Sativa and Indica. Indica is the type that knocks you out and makes you sit on the couch doing nothing; Sativa's, for me anyway, gives a focused, up buzz that makes me sharper and more alert. I am a Sativa-only guy and for me smoking and then dealing with rush-hour traffic is how I prefer things. If you are saying people shouldn't smoke an indica heavy strain and then drive, I could see that argument but, in my experience, it's still safer than alcohol. But yes, generally, I would agree with that. Sativa's though, no way, that just doesn't make sense based on my personal experience.
lubesGordi 10y ago
Did you read the article? What facts are you even basing your claims on?
Zigurd 10y ago
Statements like this one are baseless, unscientific, and fearmongering: "Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high." MAYBE this is correct. But it is also possible that being stoned is benign compared to allergy medication, sleep apnea symptoms, general fatigue, texting while driving, and a hundred other causes of risk, enough to make it hard to distinguish driving while stoned as an seperable risk factor. The downside of statements like this is that they perpetuate a fear-driven enforcement model that will cost many people thousands to tens of thousands of dollars for infractions that are not making anyone safer. And there are opportunists ready to enrich themselves on that basis.
zzz157 10y ago
It is nothing like functional alcoholism. Marijuana does not cause someone to become overconfident and make stupid decisions and take risks, and it doesn't cause any significant change in reaction time when used regularly. But, of course, a functional alcoholic would probably drive drunk slightly more safely than someone who rarely drinks. But the direct CNS effects of alcohol make alcohol a pretty direct safety risk in ways that marijuana is not. Also, do you support the .08 legal limit for alcohol? That's about two drinks for most people. If you do, do you think Marijuana should be any different? Why could I have two drinks, but not two joints?

by kdamken 10y ago

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

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. Part of the issue is that public transportation lacking in a lot of parts of the country. Some folks just don't have options, even things like Uber, and if you live just slightly out of the way, such things wind up costing even more money. If you are drunk, you can get arrested in some places (indiana) for walking home - instant public intoxication charge. 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.

squidfood 10y ago
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).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > 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. Not sure that's true: if the alcohol was still in your blood that long, it would still be affecting you and impairing function.
- mirimir 10y ago
  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.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    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.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Maybe there's a key distinction between THC levels in the blood and bioavailable THC. THC is extremely lipophilic, so it might get trapped for degradation.
amazon_not 10y ago
> These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging. Lack of transportation, other options or the public intoxication charges should not and cannot ever be an acceptable reason for driving while impaired. If you indulge, don't drive. Period. There is no option B. The only acceptable solution, if you have to get behind a wheel and drive, is to abstain from any impairing consumption.
marcoperaza 10y ago
>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).
- joesmo 10y ago
  "If you're so drunk that you'd get pulled over as a pedestrian, then you most certainly should not be driving." Or you could just be walking while black (or hispanic, etc.).
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Are you really blaming racism for DUIs?
    - selectodude 10y ago
      I think he's blaming racism for public intox.
    - joesmo 10y ago
      No, I'm saying that you don't have to be visibly drunk to be stopped by police, especially if you're a minority.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  I don't think you understand. If you are legally drunk - blow a .08 on the test - you can get a public intoxication charge. It is that simple. All that takes is living out of town and walking down the main route to your house and someone stopping and smelling alcohol. It is great to put that theoretical thing in place. But people do, occasionally, mess up. I rarely went to bars because of transportation - others, not so much. Alcohol impairs judgement as, and if the options aren't there and easy to use, it is more likely that folks will drive drunk.

tetrep 10y ago

> I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired. The keyword here is "impaired." It doesn't just have to involve drugs, being exhausted and attempting to drive is also very dangerous. Not just for you, but for everyone else on/near the road.

odonnellryan 10y ago
This is true, don't immediately after waking up, when very tired, etc..

dubcanada 10y ago

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 only thing that is different between that and random over the counter medication is one is called pot.

NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
how about angry - really really really angry.. that is not a good way to drive.
rudolf0 10y ago
People really, really shouldn't be driving under those conditions, either.
kdamken 10y ago
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 road for a few moments (which is admittedly still crazy dangerous). If you drive stoned - you're driving less safely the entire time you're driving. The combination of the two is even worse. - Having a heart condition doesn't mean you're going to necessarily have a heart attack every time you drive - there's just a higher risk that something might happen. Even in that case, you may be able to stop/pull over. Once again, if you drive stoned - you're driving less safely the entire time you're driving. - You can have a backup pair of glasses, you can pull over, etc. But my main point - just because there are other things that can make the already insanely dangerous activity of driving more risky, doesn't make driving high less bad.
- jerkstate 10y ago

TallGuyShort 10y ago

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.

scottious 10y ago

> but I don't think it's okay to pretend that it's safe to get high and go driving. I agree, but I also think it's more nuanced than that. Sure, at the extremes you're totally right. Though take a daily smoker who doses themselves with a predictable and regular amount... that person is very likely not impaired, or at least not more impaired than somebody who's behind the wheel while they're tired. I think the reality is very complicated... and that makes accurate laws really hard to create. It certainly is easier to just say "you can't have any THC in your body while you're driving"... but I don't agree with that and I don't have a better suggestion honestly.

three14 10y ago

The article didn't say that it's safe at all - just that the measurement of THC in the blood doesn't tell you if someone is impaired. If someone knows they are high, they're probably at much more risk than the people with THC in their blood discussed in the article.

serge2k 10y ago

> I worry that people read studies like this and suddenly justify going out and driving while impaired I don't know about that, I think the people who want to do that will just find another excuse. Especially potheads, who seem to be unable to acknowledge that anything exists in this world that isn't helped by pot. Driving? probably better if you do while high. Seizures? Pot is now the only accepted option man. Broken back? Here have a pot brownie.

gnaritas 10y ago

You're incorrect and you're incorrectly equating pot to alcohol as if the effects were remotely similar, they are not. > And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving. That means users who are too high to drive know it, and don't. It also means you can drive high as long as you're not too high without adversely affecting safety. Pot is not alcohol, it does not belong in that mold and there's absolutely no reason to single it out of the multitude of other things that can impair driving. Alcohol is a special case precisely because it impairs your judgement.

norea-armozel 10y ago

Well I can say for certain when I take certain allergy meds I know I can't drive for crap. So I usually stay in. And when at work I just deal with the allergies as is since I have a long commute home since the last time I tried driving on allergy meds made it hard to concentrate. So, I can imagine it's not much better driving high on pot.

Shivetya 10y ago

Impaired has meaning, there might be different levels of impairment and that is what worries me most. People vastly over estimate their driving skills when sober. Which by the way, you ever want to see just how good you are in reality, go do one of the racing related or defensive driving course. Ouch.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

evo_9 10y ago

I disagree. Most days when I get out of work the first thing I do is smoke with my Pax2 as I walk to my car. I then drive home 'high'. I've done this most of my adult life. Smoking Pot and driving has zero negative effects on my driving. In fact, just as the article points out, I am more likely to drive more safely and take it easy. Also, for what its worth, there are two types of strains - Sativa and Indica. Indica is the type that knocks you out and makes you sit on the couch doing nothing; Sativa's, for me anyway, gives a focused, up buzz that makes me sharper and more alert. I am a Sativa-only guy and for me smoking and then dealing with rush-hour traffic is how I prefer things. If you are saying people shouldn't smoke an indica heavy strain and then drive, I could see that argument but, in my experience, it's still safer than alcohol. But yes, generally, I would agree with that. Sativa's though, no way, that just doesn't make sense based on my personal experience.

lubesGordi 10y ago

Did you read the article? What facts are you even basing your claims on?

Zigurd 10y ago

Statements like this one are baseless, unscientific, and fearmongering: "Do not read this and think it's okay to drive high. It's not. Do not drive high." MAYBE this is correct. But it is also possible that being stoned is benign compared to allergy medication, sleep apnea symptoms, general fatigue, texting while driving, and a hundred other causes of risk, enough to make it hard to distinguish driving while stoned as an seperable risk factor. The downside of statements like this is that they perpetuate a fear-driven enforcement model that will cost many people thousands to tens of thousands of dollars for infractions that are not making anyone safer. And there are opportunists ready to enrich themselves on that basis.

zzz157 10y ago

It is nothing like functional alcoholism. Marijuana does not cause someone to become overconfident and make stupid decisions and take risks, and it doesn't cause any significant change in reaction time when used regularly. But, of course, a functional alcoholic would probably drive drunk slightly more safely than someone who rarely drinks. But the direct CNS effects of alcohol make alcohol a pretty direct safety risk in ways that marijuana is not. Also, do you support the .08 legal limit for alcohol? That's about two drinks for most people. If you do, do you think Marijuana should be any different? Why could I have two drinks, but not two joints?