5 ms·

> A dose that might give a regular user a gentle buzz could render a first-time user completely stoned. > It's possible that these people were all incredibly s

by xienze 1y ago

> A dose that might give a regular user a gentle buzz could render a first-time user completely stoned. > It's possible that these people were all incredibly stoned while driving but it's also possible that many drivers in Ohio are regular THC users and have such a high tolerance that their function is unimpaired. Can't you make this same argument with alcohol? > Ultimately, as far as I can tell, the current state of things is that we're fairly certain that THC is able to impair driving ability but we have no idea how much THC is needed to do it or how impaired drivers become. So how exactly would you propose states move forward with allowing people to consume THC and operate vehicles (or not)? We apparently can't even tell if someone is impaired in a reliable way.

hamdingers 1y ago
> Can't you make this same argument with alcohol? No because a once-daily user of THC will continue to test positive for 14+ days after quitting completely. For alcohol it's 6-12 hours. They are not comparable.
- xienze 1y ago
  No, I was referring to the argument about tolerance. "Your honor, my client is a raging alcoholic. Yes he blew 0.2, and while that may make the average person highly intoxicated, my client can function perfectly well at that level."
  - esseph 1y ago
    It is very hard to determine for thc-based intoxication via a test to determine not only when the person was intoxicated, but to what degree. They could have been stoned a week ago, or two weeks ago.
rafram 1y ago
Increased tolerance to THC actually makes it get you less high (for lack of a better term). You need a higher dose to be the same level of impaired. Real stoners can be totally functional and barely even high while hitting a vape every few minutes, but a first-time cannabis user might be on the floor after a single hit. AFAIK the same isn’t true of alcohol - people who drink a lot may learn to be more functional while drunk, but I don’t believe that someone with a high tolerance has any faster of a reaction time than someone with a low tolerance, if their BACs are the same.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
floatrock 1y ago
> Can't you make this same argument with alcohol? Other commentators are pointing out and linking to sources that explain how the tolerance bio-mechanisms are very different between alcohol and marijuana. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison that happen to use the same word "tolerance." > So how exactly would you propose states move forward with allowing people to consume THC and operate vehicles And that is the conundrum, ain't it? At the very least, the HN crowd is saying "don't take an approach that works well for A but not for B, and apply it to B anyways because it's an easy thing that makes your re-election campaign look like you're doing something instead of having the difficult, nuanced discussion of what IS the right enforcement model for something new." The risk is these things tend to get cemented in once they're passed. We already did that once with marijuana when we scheduled it more dangerous than methamphetamine, fentanyl, and diazepam. But hey, that scheduling sure did win Nixon the political points he was looking for...
- xienze 1y ago
  > Other commentators are pointing out and linking to sources that explain how the tolerance bio-mechanisms are very different between alcohol and marijuana. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Yes I've seen that but I have a HARD time believing that two or three beers affects an alcoholic the same as it affects someone who drinks once a month. Alcohol tolerance is also a thing, why are people suggesting it isn't? > The risk is these things tend to get cemented in once they're passed. Yes but, it sounds like you have to have some sort of test for this, lest it turns into an "officer discretion" kind of thing since there's no reliable way to measure intoxication. Otherwise, it basically sounds like you can get as high as you want and no one can possibly charge you with DUI because of "you can't prove how long ago I took it" or "I have a tolerance, it doesn't affect me" (which totally does not fly as an argument in court with alcohol).
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - rafram 1y ago
    Alcohol tolerance doesn't meaningfully affect reaction time. We use the same word ("tolerance") for alcohol and marijuana, but the mechanisms are quite different.
alphazard 1y ago
Technically the same thing applies, but to a much, much lesser degree. While it's true that alcoholics can perform most tasks better than the average person after a few drinks, and there is some data showing they are less likely to get in accidents after drinking, they still become significantly impaired at about the same rate as everyone else. They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap. The amount of non-impaired alcoholics driving around with BACs above the legal limit is negligible. The human body's ability to adapt to THC is far greater than its ability to adapt to alcohol. The Endocannabinoid system safely saturates, you can only have so much before the next dose doesn't really do much more. Alcohol, on the other hand, continues to have about the same marginal effect, until toxicity is reached.
- xienze 1y ago
  > They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap. When the legal limit is 0.08 or lower, that's the difference between "too drunk for a non-alcoholic to drive" and "perfectly fine for an alcoholic", isn't it? Yet no court would accept that as an argument.
- dpark 1y ago
  > While it's true that alcoholics can perform most tasks better than the average person after a few drinks, and there is some data showing they are less likely to get in accidents after drinking, they still become significantly impaired at about the same rate as everyone else. This is completely self contradictory. It’s absolutely not “the same rate” if alcoholics can drink multiple additional drinks without showing impairment compared to nonalcoholics. > They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap. This is kind of absurd. “Yeah, they can drink way more without impairment, but they’ll probably still drink to impairment.” This is borderline future crime. I certainly don’t think we should allow alcoholics to drive with a higher BAC, mostly because the entire point of BAC is to make assessment more objective, but your logic is pretty tortured here.
  - alphazard 1y ago

by xienze 1y ago

hamdingers 1y ago

> Can't you make this same argument with alcohol? No because a once-daily user of THC will continue to test positive for 14+ days after quitting completely. For alcohol it's 6-12 hours. They are not comparable.

xienze 1y ago
No, I was referring to the argument about tolerance. "Your honor, my client is a raging alcoholic. Yes he blew 0.2, and while that may make the average person highly intoxicated, my client can function perfectly well at that level."
- esseph 1y ago
  It is very hard to determine for thc-based intoxication via a test to determine not only when the person was intoxicated, but to what degree. They could have been stoned a week ago, or two weeks ago.

rafram 1y ago

Increased tolerance to THC actually makes it get you less high (for lack of a better term). You need a higher dose to be the same level of impaired. Real stoners can be totally functional and barely even high while hitting a vape every few minutes, but a first-time cannabis user might be on the floor after a single hit. AFAIK the same isn’t true of alcohol - people who drink a lot may learn to be more functional while drunk, but I don’t believe that someone with a high tolerance has any faster of a reaction time than someone with a low tolerance, if their BACs are the same.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

floatrock 1y ago

> Can't you make this same argument with alcohol? Other commentators are pointing out and linking to sources that explain how the tolerance bio-mechanisms are very different between alcohol and marijuana. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison that happen to use the same word "tolerance." > So how exactly would you propose states move forward with allowing people to consume THC and operate vehicles And that is the conundrum, ain't it? At the very least, the HN crowd is saying "don't take an approach that works well for A but not for B, and apply it to B anyways because it's an easy thing that makes your re-election campaign look like you're doing something instead of having the difficult, nuanced discussion of what IS the right enforcement model for something new." The risk is these things tend to get cemented in once they're passed. We already did that once with marijuana when we scheduled it more dangerous than methamphetamine, fentanyl, and diazepam. But hey, that scheduling sure did win Nixon the political points he was looking for...

xienze 1y ago
> Other commentators are pointing out and linking to sources that explain how the tolerance bio-mechanisms are very different between alcohol and marijuana. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Yes I've seen that but I have a HARD time believing that two or three beers affects an alcoholic the same as it affects someone who drinks once a month. Alcohol tolerance is also a thing, why are people suggesting it isn't? > The risk is these things tend to get cemented in once they're passed. Yes but, it sounds like you have to have some sort of test for this, lest it turns into an "officer discretion" kind of thing since there's no reliable way to measure intoxication. Otherwise, it basically sounds like you can get as high as you want and no one can possibly charge you with DUI because of "you can't prove how long ago I took it" or "I have a tolerance, it doesn't affect me" (which totally does not fly as an argument in court with alcohol).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rafram 1y ago
  Alcohol tolerance doesn't meaningfully affect reaction time. We use the same word ("tolerance") for alcohol and marijuana, but the mechanisms are quite different.

alphazard 1y ago

Technically the same thing applies, but to a much, much lesser degree. While it's true that alcoholics can perform most tasks better than the average person after a few drinks, and there is some data showing they are less likely to get in accidents after drinking, they still become significantly impaired at about the same rate as everyone else. They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap. The amount of non-impaired alcoholics driving around with BACs above the legal limit is negligible. The human body's ability to adapt to THC is far greater than its ability to adapt to alcohol. The Endocannabinoid system safely saturates, you can only have so much before the next dose doesn't really do much more. Alcohol, on the other hand, continues to have about the same marginal effect, until toxicity is reached.

xienze 1y ago
> They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap. When the legal limit is 0.08 or lower, that's the difference between "too drunk for a non-alcoholic to drive" and "perfectly fine for an alcoholic", isn't it? Yet no court would accept that as an argument.
dpark 1y ago
> While it's true that alcoholics can perform most tasks better than the average person after a few drinks, and there is some data showing they are less likely to get in accidents after drinking, they still become significantly impaired at about the same rate as everyone else. This is completely self contradictory. It’s absolutely not “the same rate” if alcoholics can drink multiple additional drinks without showing impairment compared to nonalcoholics. > They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap. This is kind of absurd. “Yeah, they can drink way more without impairment, but they’ll probably still drink to impairment.” This is borderline future crime. I certainly don’t think we should allow alcoholics to drive with a higher BAC, mostly because the entire point of BAC is to make assessment more objective, but your logic is pretty tortured here.
- alphazard 1y ago