3 ms·

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 af

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
  I'm speaking in comparison to THC. We are talking about order of magnitude differences with THC, especially in the blood after smoking or vaporizing. The difference between a little drunk and very drunk is only a factor of 2, probably less. I don't even think it's possible for a human to be 4 times as drunk as another also drunk human and survive. The best way to think about tolerance to alcohol is buying a small constant headstart, while THC is better modeled as a difference of rates depending on tolerance. I think most people will find that model useful, and the numbers (BAC) support that as a rule of thumb calculation. Somehow you disagree that my model is accurate enough, but also agree that a constant cutoff is a good heuristic for legal intoxication from alcohol.
  - dpark 1y ago
    I have no idea about THC tolerance in comparison with alcohol. The numbers I see some people claim to consume is in your order of magnitude range vs what beginners are advised to use so it’s believable. > Somehow you disagree that my model is accurate enough, but also agree that a constant cutoff is a good heuristic for legal intoxication from alcohol. It’s not that I think your model isn’t accurate enough. It’s that I think your model is not consistent. A few extra drinks is enough to go from just barely under .08 to .16. If an alcoholic can run nearly double the alcohol intake (and double the BAC) of a nonalcoholic I don’t agree that this is nearly the same. I agree with the constant cutoff because a constant reasonable limit is easier to administer. Less subjectivity for law enforcement is a good thing. I would probably support for the same for THC. “But I consume so much that I have a really high tolerance!” Ok, that’s not everyone else’s problem to deal with. Don’t drink if you’re over the limit.
    - everforward 1y ago
      They cant run double, it becomes clearer as the baseline goes up. At .16, the alcoholic would be up at .32 and at serious risk of dying from respiratory suppression. They’re more used to being drunk, but that doesn’t avoid the physical reality of alcohol toxicity. It’s very different than THC where a 10x tolerance is pretty normal for a new user vs a heavy user. Relative to alcohol, that would be .08 vs .80 which is like twice the lethal limit. Thus it’s very hard to set limits because one persons residual use from 6 hours ago is enough to get another person stoned off their ass. I don’t really have solutions there though.

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
I'm speaking in comparison to THC. We are talking about order of magnitude differences with THC, especially in the blood after smoking or vaporizing. The difference between a little drunk and very drunk is only a factor of 2, probably less. I don't even think it's possible for a human to be 4 times as drunk as another also drunk human and survive. The best way to think about tolerance to alcohol is buying a small constant headstart, while THC is better modeled as a difference of rates depending on tolerance. I think most people will find that model useful, and the numbers (BAC) support that as a rule of thumb calculation. Somehow you disagree that my model is accurate enough, but also agree that a constant cutoff is a good heuristic for legal intoxication from alcohol.
- dpark 1y ago
  I have no idea about THC tolerance in comparison with alcohol. The numbers I see some people claim to consume is in your order of magnitude range vs what beginners are advised to use so it’s believable. > Somehow you disagree that my model is accurate enough, but also agree that a constant cutoff is a good heuristic for legal intoxication from alcohol. It’s not that I think your model isn’t accurate enough. It’s that I think your model is not consistent. A few extra drinks is enough to go from just barely under .08 to .16. If an alcoholic can run nearly double the alcohol intake (and double the BAC) of a nonalcoholic I don’t agree that this is nearly the same. I agree with the constant cutoff because a constant reasonable limit is easier to administer. Less subjectivity for law enforcement is a good thing. I would probably support for the same for THC. “But I consume so much that I have a really high tolerance!” Ok, that’s not everyone else’s problem to deal with. Don’t drink if you’re over the limit.
  - everforward 1y ago
    They cant run double, it becomes clearer as the baseline goes up. At .16, the alcoholic would be up at .32 and at serious risk of dying from respiratory suppression. They’re more used to being drunk, but that doesn’t avoid the physical reality of alcohol toxicity. It’s very different than THC where a 10x tolerance is pretty normal for a new user vs a heavy user. Relative to alcohol, that would be .08 vs .80 which is like twice the lethal limit. Thus it’s very hard to set limits because one persons residual use from 6 hours ago is enough to get another person stoned off their ass. I don’t really have solutions there though.