3 ms·

From the comments here, it seems like people either didn't read the article, or just don't believe the study, because it pretty much says it is ok to smoke and

From the comments here, it seems like people either didn't read the article, or just don't believe the study, because it pretty much says it is ok to smoke and drive. For marijuana, and for a number of other legal and illegal drugs including antidepressants, painkillers, stimulants and the like, there is no statistically significant change in the risk of a crash associated with using that drug prior to driving.

draw_down 10y ago
As I mentioned in my other comment, people do not want to hear about studies or other data indicating that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. They just do not want to hear it.
cooper12 10y ago
Skepticism is healthy. It's quite common for mainstream media to distill a study with tons of caveats and situational results to clickbait like "drinking alcohol means you'll live longer". Not to mention we shouldn't draw any conclusions until reading the paper itself because the article says nothing of their methodology. Lastly with things like the replication crisis and other shoddy results, I don't blame people for not being so fast to believe what common sense would tell them otherwise. [0] Edit, case in point, caveats from the paper itself: > While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free. The study limitations cited above, together with the findings of numerous other studies using different and complementary methods, need to be carefully considered before more definitive conclusions about drug use and crash risk can be reached. > The findings of this study notwithstanding, the established body of scientific evidence on the subject of drug impairment indicates that in some situations, drugs other than alcohol can seriously impair driving ability. Oh, and you really should read articles all the way through: > So, should we all assume that we're safe to blaze one and go for a joyride whenever the whimsy strikes us? Absolutely not. There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
notahacker 10y ago
From your comment, you clearly read neither the article nor the study. I mean, the article states "There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble" and the study itself cites plenty of other studies which have found strong positive associations between marijuana use and driving impairments. What it actually shows is that for one particular study the increase in crashes resulting from users testing positive for marijuana (i.e. have used up to a week ago) becomes statistically insignificant when controlling for user demographics. It also threw up anomalies like a [statistically insignificant] improvement in drivers under the influence of smaller amounts of alcohol over no alcohol or drugs, so I wouldn't exactly herald it as definitive. To argue that they "pretty much says it is ok to smoke and drive" is a grotesque distortion of the actual research.
- mcbits 10y ago
  So, we have "impairs key driving skills" versus "no statistically significant change in the risk of a crash". It sounds a bit like in vitro vs. in vivo results. At the end of the day, I'm more concerned about risk factors that actually lead to accidents on the roads. Why doesn't "key driving skill" impairment from marijuana appear to increase the risk of a crash? My best guess is that stoned drivers are concerned about being pulled over and are able to compensate more than 1) someone impaired but not aware/concerned enough to compensate (e.g. tired or distracted drivers) or 2) someone worried about getting pulled over but unable to compensate as well for their impairment (e.g. drunk drivers).
  - notahacker 10y ago
    I suspect drivers under the influence being cautious is a factor. I suspect majority of drivers testing positive for cannabis were not actually remotely close to being stoned at the time they were driving plays a huge role too (possibly also overzealous demographic controls). That's consistent with the study authors' observations that other studies based on accidents which rely on self-reported cannabis use show it to have a large effect on accident rates, and studies which rely on testing to show it has little or no discernible impact on accident rates. They consider the studies relying on testing to be superior in construction. Based on the well-established fact that cannabis use tends to show up in standard tests days after its main effects have worn off, I beg to differ.
FireBeyond 10y ago
I think you're completely misreading the study. The conclusion that you quote says -nothing- about the safety of using those drugs and driving, just compares them to marijuana. Note: those drugs come with warnings either recommending against driving or observing your reaction to the drug before driving. Not: "you can, so, good to go". I don't smoke. I work in EMS. I see many many positive medical and recreational uses. My partner is a recreational, daily smoker. I have no bias here. I'm just pointing out that you're extrapolating from the quote above something that it doesn't say. No comment is made about the safety of those drug classes and driving, and indeed your extrapolation makes you as guilty of inference as you say others are: "Well, I don't see any impact when I use those drugs and drive, so I don't see a problem".

draw_down 10y ago

As I mentioned in my other comment, people do not want to hear about studies or other data indicating that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. They just do not want to hear it.

cooper12 10y ago

Skepticism is healthy. It's quite common for mainstream media to distill a study with tons of caveats and situational results to clickbait like "drinking alcohol means you'll live longer". Not to mention we shouldn't draw any conclusions until reading the paper itself because the article says nothing of their methodology. Lastly with things like the replication crisis and other shoddy results, I don't blame people for not being so fast to believe what common sense would tell them otherwise. [0] Edit, case in point, caveats from the paper itself: > While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free. The study limitations cited above, together with the findings of numerous other studies using different and complementary methods, need to be carefully considered before more definitive conclusions about drug use and crash risk can be reached. > The findings of this study notwithstanding, the established body of scientific evidence on the subject of drug impairment indicates that in some situations, drugs other than alcohol can seriously impair driving ability. Oh, and you really should read articles all the way through: > So, should we all assume that we're safe to blaze one and go for a joyride whenever the whimsy strikes us? Absolutely not. There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

notahacker 10y ago

From your comment, you clearly read neither the article nor the study. I mean, the article states "There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble" and the study itself cites plenty of other studies which have found strong positive associations between marijuana use and driving impairments. What it actually shows is that for one particular study the increase in crashes resulting from users testing positive for marijuana (i.e. have used up to a week ago) becomes statistically insignificant when controlling for user demographics. It also threw up anomalies like a [statistically insignificant] improvement in drivers under the influence of smaller amounts of alcohol over no alcohol or drugs, so I wouldn't exactly herald it as definitive. To argue that they "pretty much says it is ok to smoke and drive" is a grotesque distortion of the actual research.

mcbits 10y ago
So, we have "impairs key driving skills" versus "no statistically significant change in the risk of a crash". It sounds a bit like in vitro vs. in vivo results. At the end of the day, I'm more concerned about risk factors that actually lead to accidents on the roads. Why doesn't "key driving skill" impairment from marijuana appear to increase the risk of a crash? My best guess is that stoned drivers are concerned about being pulled over and are able to compensate more than 1) someone impaired but not aware/concerned enough to compensate (e.g. tired or distracted drivers) or 2) someone worried about getting pulled over but unable to compensate as well for their impairment (e.g. drunk drivers).
- notahacker 10y ago
  I suspect drivers under the influence being cautious is a factor. I suspect majority of drivers testing positive for cannabis were not actually remotely close to being stoned at the time they were driving plays a huge role too (possibly also overzealous demographic controls). That's consistent with the study authors' observations that other studies based on accidents which rely on self-reported cannabis use show it to have a large effect on accident rates, and studies which rely on testing to show it has little or no discernible impact on accident rates. They consider the studies relying on testing to be superior in construction. Based on the well-established fact that cannabis use tends to show up in standard tests days after its main effects have worn off, I beg to differ.

FireBeyond 10y ago

I think you're completely misreading the study. The conclusion that you quote says -nothing- about the safety of using those drugs and driving, just compares them to marijuana. Note: those drugs come with warnings either recommending against driving or observing your reaction to the drug before driving. Not: "you can, so, good to go". I don't smoke. I work in EMS. I see many many positive medical and recreational uses. My partner is a recreational, daily smoker. I have no bias here. I'm just pointing out that you're extrapolating from the quote above something that it doesn't say. No comment is made about the safety of those drug classes and driving, and indeed your extrapolation makes you as guilty of inference as you say others are: "Well, I don't see any impact when I use those drugs and drive, so I don't see a problem".