Marijuana's risk to drivers debated

[Jesus Malverde]

As California advocates ponder a renewed push to legalize marijuana for adults, law enforcement officials and traffic safety experts are warning of a side effect of states allowing the drug for medical or recreational use: the danger caused by people driving while high.

Research is incomplete on how much marijuana it takes to impair driving. But Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said being even a little intoxicated on marijuana is unacceptable.

"Smoking marijuana has a very negative effect on your ability to operate a motor vehicle," Kerlikowske said. "It's quite dangerous to you, your passengers and others on the road."

Marijuana advocates acknowledge that driving under the influence of cannabis is ill-advised. But they argue that law enforcement's concern is overblown, and point to a 2012 study that concluded the auto accident risk posed by marijuana is on par with antihistamines and penicillin.

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Marijuana-s-risk-to-drivers-debated-5022778.php

[Ron Green]

1. Back in my stoner days

I always found that I was a slow, careful and somewhat... strange driver.

[on point]

2. Hysterical officials channeling the ignorance of reefer madness

[Th1onein]

43. You hit the nail on the head.

[PeaceNikki]

3. I am very interested to see how this plays out.

I have taken plenty of over-the-counter cold medicine that has made me too loopy to drive. Like the article (or comments?) mention, it will impair some people and not others. And, since the current tests (to my knowledge) can't determine whether the person is under the influence or it's residual THC, I have no idea what will come of this.

I am also very curious about legal recreational or medicinal uses and employment drug testing.

We'll see, I guess.

[Warpy]

4. Arrests shouldn't be based on substances used

They need to be based on how the person is driving plus a coordination test. Fatigue and texting are both worse than driving drunk.

Stoned drivers know they're impaired and they're the ones doing 5 miles under the speed limit on back streets. They overcompensate. Most will pass coordination tests unless they were drinking, too.

[bemildred]

9. +1. nt

[arcane1]

18. Prescription pain-killers have a label that says not to drive or operate machinery

I see no reason why pot should be uniquely treated. Don't drink and drive. Don't take vicodin and drive. Don't smoke pot and drive.

It's interesting how weed is being treated by some as if it's soooo different. Successful anti-pot PR is to blame

[bemildred]

21. The problem with cannabis is there is no drug test

that will show if you are presently stoned or not. So they will have to rely on impairment tests. While I agree one ought not drive while stoned, there is no way to tell except impairment tests, and you have to do that well enough to stand up in court.

[hollowdweller]

23. No there's an actual blood test.

[bemildred]

25. Right, and it tells you if someone has used cannabis in the last two weeks or so.

Whereas the intoxicating effects of cannabis last a few hours. If you intend to punish driving under the influence rather than possession or allowed uses, it becomes a problem.

[arcane1]

24. And probably something like "open container" laws, too.

Regarding impairment tests, many many years ago I was driving around late at night while smoking pot, and since I was using a bong I had to steer with my knees while hitting it. A cop saw me, this young long-haired guy in a muscle car at 2am, weaving slightly, and pulled me over. I had to take a sobriety test. The touch-your-nose thing, reciting the alphabet from D through T, etc. I passed it perfectly, and during the test I thought "there is no way I could pass this if I had been drinking"

[bemildred]

28. "I know what you mean"

Been there, done that, long time ago. Never been stopped since. And you are so right about booze.

[Warpy]

60. Actually, it says something quite different

Use caution when operating a car or dangerous machinery. That's a direct quote from my bottle. There are some medications I can drive on, others I'd prefer not to because my reaction time is slowed.

Driving behavior should be regulated instead of tests for substances. Because cannabinols are stored in fatty tissue, drivers could test positive even after a couple of weeks of total sobriety. It's just not practical.

Driving while texting or when exhausted are both worse than driving drunk. It's why reckless behavior needs to be targeted, not substances.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. I'm fine with treating pot DUIs like prescription drug DUIs

In both cases we don't have a precise mechanism to quantify the amount in one's system like we do for alcohol. I agree that it's not a good idea to drive under the influence of any substances.

[RainDog]

93. Yes.

on-site tests are the only way this can be done, and, afaik, only a saliva test provides an accurate window of use to make a claim that cannabis, rather than something else, is responsible for a driver's actions.

I think public education commercials, etc., like those that exist for alcohol, are a good way to create an awareness - not that people using aren't aware - but they have the effect of stating public expectation. The problem will be if they provide false information.

But people also need to be aware that the effects of cannabis and alcohol are VERY different, in terms of perceptions of ability (alcohol makes people overly confident in their ability to drive, cannabis does not.)

And those who are handling this have to be careful not to confuse the effects of the two - but can talk about the effects of the combination of the two.

I would much rather share the road with a stoned driver than a drunk driver.

[MADem]

5. I wouldn't recommend that anyone drive stoned.

That said, if, in some weird alternate universe, I had to decide if the impaired drivers on the road would be drunk, or stoned, I would choose stoned.

I think the stoned drivers would take their time, not be in such a hurry, not be obnoxiously cocksure (Note to anyone who is easily offended: no that is not a dirty word, look it up, alert-hound! ) and would be safer on the roads than drunken drivers.

[Romulox]

6. Marijuana doesn't impair motor skills. That's the reality that Drug Warriors can't/won't process. nt

[Bennyboy]

36. Ding a ling.....

it doesn't and in some cases, myself among them, it makes them better drivers. More awareness. Slower speed. I for one can think of almost everything we do in the car as being more hazardous.

Eating? Phoning? screwing with the GPS, stereo.....

See that is why they want to go right to a chemical test instead of creating a roadside test. That and get the okay to take blood in the states where there is a choice.

[Ace Acme]

102. A Highway Patrolman once had occasion to tell a friend of mine

... that he thought half the drivers on the freeway were high on something, and he could always tell the pot smokers because they always drove exactly in the center of their lane at exactly the speed limit.

[Bennyboy]

108. that is so me.....

I set the cruise at the speed limit and cruise. My car has an uncomfortable shimmy at 70 so I never go past 65 on the freeway..... Really takes a lot of the hassle off of driving when you are not constantly looking in your mirror....

Stoners are way more courteous that much is sure. Ive never been with a stoner driver and had them cut people off or give people the finger or none of that. Just whatever, it's not that big of deal to get five feet farther on the freeway....

[Art_from_Ark]

112. The one time I rode with a stoned driver,

she was going 30 miles over the speed limit, and wasn't aware of it until I told her, after which she didn't care-- until a cop pulled her over. I don't believe that highway patrolman.

[Skip Intro]

89. Oh, yes it does. I can barely drive on the stuff, and

shouldn't even be trying. And it ain't just the paranoia of being pulled over, it is difficult to almost impossible to process what is going on and react to it effectively. And this is on mid-grade stuff. There have to be others who are affected the same way.

[Blue Owl]

7. Obey your speed limits & your weed limits

n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

8. I really don't know how you test for this, but...

back in the day I spent a fair amount of time wrecked on good hash we got in Amsterdam and I scared the living shit out of myself more than once trying to drive home. The Autobahn was a real treat when high. A lot of this has to do with the individual, because when I drank and drove in the past, I was also extra careful because I knew I was drunk.

Speaking from experience, the problem while stoned is centered on sensual perceptions of things like speed and distance while alcohol additionally wipes out your motor skills. Fortunately, I never got caught, or hurt anything, while high, but I'm not altogether comfortable with allowing yet more mind altering substances on the roads. I was lucky, not smart. And there was no texting back then.

[dipsydoodle]

10. Don't try it in the UK

Motorists who get behind the wheel after smoking cannabis face losing their licence for at least a year under a “one spliff and you’re over the limit” crackdown on drug driving.

Ministers today proposed a “zero tolerance” crackdown on people who drive after using illegal drugs.

Nearly 9,000 drivers are expected to face prosecution a year under the new drug driving offence due to come into force next year.

Motorists found guilty will face an automatic driving ban of at least a year, as well as possibly jail of up to six months and a fine of up to £5,000.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/one-spliff-and-youre-off-the-road-crackdown-on-drug-driving-8697798.html

[Jesus Malverde]

12. Is this the George Michael Law?

Of all the people who need a driver

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. That law has no basis in any actual science. But that hasn't stopped British politicians before.

You folks over there have some real Reefer Madness going on. Reading your tabloids is like reading the American press in the 1950s when it comes to marijuana, er, cannabis.

I love the headlines like " Skunk-Crazed Driver Runs Over Granny." Then, about 15 paragraphs into the story, you find out he had a hit of weed, but drank 29 pints down at the pub first.

And that whole cannabis-schizophrenia thing, which seems mainly to affect people in former Commonwealth countries. Go figger.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. From where do you think America got that big stick up its butt?

Most of what's worst about America is what we brought with us from England and various churches.

[marsis]

30. I see the insurance

industry rules Britain also.

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. Drunk driver blows through the stop sign; stoned driver waits for it to turn green.

[Jesus Malverde]

16. Arcata No-Go

Arcata No-Go: The four-way stop dilemma in which all drivers insist that the others proceed first. Alternately known as the Arcata Courtesy Fight and/or the NoYouGo.

[bemildred]

34. LOL.

[Bennyboy]

37. HIGH-lee-larry-us.

[countryjake]

46. The Accident

[mike_c]

80. LOL-- yep, happens EVERY day....

Roundabouts are fun, too.

[Th1onein]

45. LOL!

[pangaia]

77. And waits and waits...

[page of coins]

13. I am sorry but NO intoxicant

should be used when a person is on the road and may have his or her reaction time delayed for even a split second. There is no need for a person to toke up and get behind the wheel and the fact that it's up for debate is very upsetting to me. It's bad enough that people think they have the right to text and yak and drive but get high first? If you can't wait until you get home to fire one up, you should contact Pot Anonymous ASAP. It's not just about you--your reckless decision endangers other people!

[Romulox]

17. There's no test for smoking during/just before driving. The test covers 4+ weeks before. nt

[page of coins]

19. Yes, and I understand that THC is stored in the body for a long time.

My comment is really directed to those folks who are posting remarks downplaying getting high before driving. I find that very troubling. We need to have all our wits about us. This meme that stoners are more careful whilst driving is insane. If someone is TOO cautious that means that their perception is lagging. Why would anyone advocate for being high and driving unless they are so compulsive about smoking that they are constantly doing one-hitters. It's so easy for something to go wrong and most decent people would be destroyed if they hurt someone else, knowing that they had toked up first.

[Egalitarian Thug]

22. No one but you is advocating for driving while impaired. The debate centers around whether or not

cannabis truly impairs (to damage or make worse by or as if by diminishing in some material respect) the user's ability.

The unspoken facts are that it is far too easy to get a driving license in the U.S. and most of the people that hold one are incompetent. Driving is dangerous primarily because we don't know how to drive.

[uppityperson]

27. What if they only ride bicycles?

[Niceguy1]

48. bicycles are no

Different. ..I have seen the resukts of two impaired bicyclists crashing into eachother. .ugly. I ride often and my experience has been that other bicyclists have been a greater danger than the cars have been.

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. That isn't advocating driving while impaired. He just made an off-hand comment...

About the same number of Americans die in cars as die being shot every year.

We strongly advocate for a system to ensure that the owners of one deadly weapon prove themselves competent to use them, but resist the idea of imposing the same on the others like a dog resists a bath.

[William769]

32. Thats why I only toke behind the Library!

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. Additionally, no one can point to any incident/accident where it is proved that it

cannabis was the cause.

They blame lot of things on cannabis and make an assumption of cause whenever it is found in or around anybody that is involved, but that's not causation, let alone proof.

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. The problem with legislation of this type is that it can't work.

Some people function well under the influence of certain substances, others do not. There are a wide range of native skills that cannot be considered in the law because they are individually variable across an infinite spectrum. 'Little Al' Unser has a pretty well exercised drinking arm due to the constant workout it gets, but drunk on his ass, as long as he remains conscious, he is still better than 99% of the other drivers on any given road in a crisis scenario.

The solution is easy, rather than trying to decide on some irrelevant and ultimately useless random number and declaring it the blanket standard under which all are judged, we go back to holding the individual responsible for his/her actions. If you cause a traffic accident, it doesn't really matter whether you caused it because you made a mistake, are a really bad driver, or are drunk, the fault lies with you.

[Bennyboy]

38. Never got high huh?

What about fast food in the car? Holding a pizza so it won't spill? phone? children? cigarettes?

all of which are more dangerous than smoking pot while driving. Those things take your eyes off the road where smoking pot does not. Is speeding more dangerous than not speeding? because study after study show that stoned drivers drive more slowly.

BTW< in the special WEED, Sanjay Gupta got in a car with a very stoned driver. watch it and hear what else he says about it.

[Bennyboy]

44. It helps me drive, quite simply....

I drive a LOT and always have and been stoned for at least 90% of the driving I have done. Like 200 miles a day, for forty years..... No accidents since I was 18 but one (that one I was totally straight at the time and had been for thirty days (Job test)....damned traffic circle.

It calms me down, makes me more aware and better for concentrating on the job of driving. I am also way more courteous, less likely to speed, tailgate and more likely to use the cruise control. I also never talk on the phone nor eat while driving. Because that is dangerous.

I damn sure know it is better for me than any other thing I could take for pain and less likely I am to abuse it (I use for chronic pain) by taking more than my usual dose. I take no prescription drugs and I ahve carpal tunnel and bad shoulders that the pain is so bad that if I did not puff I would be taking Oxys......

[DesertFlower]

105. true. nt

[seveneyes]

41. A split second

Is .5 second of reaction time your limit or is it any fraction of a second? It needs to be a clear and established rule and be applied to all possible substances. That mouthwash or vanilla extract in your cookie will impair you for some fraction of a second. The bullshit some authorities use to detect femtograms in you from weeks or months prior can snag your ass too. Anyone still running with the myths of Refer Madness to make laws should not be anywhere near public policy making. The Boner and Shumer types should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, along with any other nanny types.

[TheSarcastinator]

63. Cannabis is NOT an "intoxicant"

The work "toxic" and "intoxicant" are synonymous with poison: the ingestion of a substance capable of killing you. Both poisons and toxins have an LD50, which is the measure of the amount of a substance required to kill 50% of the people who ingest it.

Cannabis has NO LD50 -- for all practical purposes cannabis is completely safe and non-toxic.

Other substances that kill more frequently than cannabis:

1. Water. Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill

2. Aspirin (as dangerous as driving a car!): http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/08/us-risks-idUSN0737156120070508

3. Coffee! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Caffeine_toxicity

Your perspective seems to be outdated and based upon propaganda and prejudice. I suggest revision.

[DesertFlower]

104. i agree. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. Test for impairment, not for metabolites. it's pretty simple.

[hollowdweller]

29. This shouldn't be hard.

I mean do several good studies. Base DUI on that.

A blood test will show the actual THC level.

My impression would be max impairment would be 20 to 45 min after ingestion, and may be related to being a bit paranoid more than actual motor coordination deficits.

I do believe there would be a point where you could still feel the buzz but would not be impaired in any way.

The only problem I see is tolerance. I've several friends who smoke almost continuously so like the same level that would probably have me saying I didn't want to drive would not even affect them at all.

[Bennyboy]

39. Sanjay Gupta in the special WEED

suggests that inexperienced drivers and stoners were affected but that long term users and drivers were not.

tests have shown that as well.

[RainDog]

94. Yes. Inexperienced weed users shouldn't toke and drive

The studies I've seen have indicated that experienced, long-term users do not show impairment while driving. There are links to this on DU in the drug policy forum when studies were issued.

In addition, one study showed that legalizing cannabis seemed to reduce traffic fatalities because of the switch from alcohol to cannabis among younger drivers.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/29/study-legalizing-medical-marijuana-reduces-traffic-fatalities/

From a study by the Institute for the Study of Labor

Opponents of medical marijuana often focus on the social detriment to making America’s most valuable cash crop available to those approved by doctors, arguing that medical marijuana legalization makes it easier for teens to buy pot and that they’ll soon move to more dangerous drugs. They also suggest that legalization would increase the number of vehicle accidents — and that very argument was one of the main reasons why California voters did not approve full legalization in 2010.

Studying data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, researchers also found that legalizing medical marijuana did, in fact, drive up usage among adults. But contrary to medical marijuana critics’ claims, they were unable to find evidence of it growing the number of minors on the drug.

A further analysis of data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, spanning from 1990 to 2009, revealed that states which legalized medical marijuana saw a decline in alcohol consumption. A decline in traffic fatalities was a direct side effect of that.

Traffic fatalities are the leading cause of death for Americans age 35 and under.

[Bennyboy]

100. B-I-N-G-O!

Truth. Also studies have indicted that the most likely group to have accidents, are benefited by cannabis consumption in regards to driving. Males 16 to 25. Higher awareness and lower speeds.

[TeamPooka]

49. more Reefer Madness that is not true.

[Politicalboi]

51. There is NO weed today

That is too strong to drive on. 30 years ago that was different. Weed today is dry, doesn't produce a strong smell, and has no resin at the end of a joint. They've ruined it. There is No weed today that can be smelled while double bagged. It's gone, it's over, so driving is a snap with today's weed. I have been smoking for over 30 years so I know what I am talking about. All this talk about how strong weed is today is bullshit. It's obvious those that believe it, have never smoked weed in the 70's and 80's so they don't know what they're missing. Weed isn't supposed to taste like lemon, bubble gum, or any other stupid name they give it today. I just hope someday we will get imported weed from those who know "good" weed. We certainly don't have it here anymore.

[PeaceNikki]

52. there most certainly is weed that can be smelled double bagged

[NoOneMan]

54. Is this parody?

Maybe 30 years ago, YOU could smoke weed that you wouldn't be comfortable driving with and the real issue is that SAME weed no longer has the same effect on you today (30 years of smoking weed builds tolerance).

There is plenty of solid weed around today that has basically the same genetics of decades ago. If you aren't happy at what the idiots sell on the corner, grow your own (from seeds you can import from reputable dealers across the world)

[RainDog]

98. The various aromas are from terpenes

that are part of the cannabis plant that are also psychoactive components, so, yes, cannabis very well can smell like bubblegum or lemon.

The way these aromas developed were from mother nature herself.

Weed today is not dry, etc. as you claim - I'm sure some might be, but that's not the reality for most of the weed grown in the U.S. and sold through dispensaries.

I also know your claim about the bags is not true because I happened to be someone who smelled weed that was sitting in someone else's bag - I was in a room, with no knowledge the other person would have any cannabis, but I smelled it and noted the same, and the person did, in fact, have the same... so, rant on, but I don't think others should take your rant seriously.

[NoOneMan]

53. Im 100 times the driver on pot than I am on nicotine

But hey, tolerance is the key there (yet 1 is legal while driving).

I still think common sense is key. Be as alert as you can while on the road.

[Pitagoras]

55. What the article doesn't say about anti-histamines

Even if the 2012 study says the effects of marihuana are similar to those of anti-histamine, 34 states make it illegal to drive under anti-histamine.

[PeaceNikki]

56. Can you offer a citation for that claim?

[Pitagoras]

58. Yeah

"Some 35 states in the U.S. have laws related to driving while impaired -- not only by alcohol, but also from antihistamines, says Cohen. These laws also apply to nonsedating formulas."

http://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20030425/new-antihistamines-not-so-nonsedating?page=2

[walkingman]

57. I am much more concerned

about cell phone usage than pot. Also it just gives law enforcement another excuse to "profile" people.

[B Calm]

59. I drive slower and more cautious when stoned. I

don't think it's okay to drive stoned, but it's much safer than driving drunk!

[Pitagoras]

61. Could it be that you drive more cautiously because you know you're at a higher risk?

than driving without it? Otherwise you wouldn't be extra cautious.

[TheSarcastinator]

62. Yeah, one problem with that

is that the evidence is against the Prohibitionists.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/12/02/driving-stoned-safer-than-driving-drunk/

"Drivers who get behind the wheel stoned instead of drunk may actually be making the roads safer in states that allow medical marijuana, according to new research.

Economists Daniel Rees of the University of Colorado Denver and Mark Anderson of Montana State University looked at traffic fatalities in thirteen states that enacted medical marijuana laws between 1990 and 2009. They found that on average, traffic fatalities in those states fell nearly 9 percent after medical pot became legal."

Legal cannabis also lowers suicide rates.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/26/1068413/-Study-Medical-Marijuana-Legalization-leads-to-decrease-in-suicide-rates

Your perpsective is outdated and based upon propaganda and prejudice. I suggest you consider revisions.

[Pitagoras]

66. The "research" you cited isn't even peer-reviewed

Not peer reviewed = junk.

Your position is so radical that even the marijuana defenders in the articles disagree with your defense.


"Marijuana advocates acknowledge that driving under the influence of cannabis is ill-advised." That is from the SF Chronicle article in the OP.

Now back to the junk research you posted, let me quote two paragraphs in it:

1) Could other factors be at work?: "For example, some states like Tennessee and Virginia, have seen declines in traffic fatalities since 1994 even without medical marijuana laws."

2) Rees says he and Anderson stand by their research, which they note has not yet been peer-reviewed by colleagues.

The ABC News article title has a question mark. But to you, it wasn't even a question. It was a fact.

[B Calm]

70. Have you ever drove stoned?

[TheSarcastinator]

74. That's Right: it is an Ongoing Study

and so is not ready for peer review yet. Nevertheless, the study is being conducted by two reputable Universities using state governmental report numbers. Do you believe state government report numbers require a peer review? Just curious.

Here is some more information:

When combined 2002 to 2005 data are compared with combined 2006 to 2009 data, the Nation as a whole experienced a statistically significant reduction in the rate of past year drugged driving (from 4.8 to 4.3 percent), as did seven States: Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Four of these seven States have legalized medicinal marijuana, Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan and California.
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k10/205/DruggedDriving.htm

California led the US to a nationwide, statistically significant reduction in the incidence of "drugged" driving during a time period when the number of patients claiming the protection of the California Compassionate Use Act and SB-420 increased by a factor of 10.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/201 ... ana_patien

In other words, once again: states with legal marijuana show a decline in driving fatalities. Or do you think the state government numbers lie? Your sophistry neither interests me nor impresses me.

[Pitagoras]

75. Man, you shouldn't have given me that first link

You have so far posted links that go against your theory. The first link says, "Driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs poses a significant threat to public safety."?

The first study cited in the first link you gave me is titled "A review of drug use and driving: epidemiology, impairment, risk factors and risk perceptions."

If you google the study, you will find it, and you will read the following: "Cannabis is generally the most common drug detected in accident-involved drivers".


Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09595230412331289482.

In this argument, you have being an even better opponent against yourself than I have.

Also don't forget that you have not explained how it can be that even marihuana advocates in the link posted in this OP (the one from he San Francisco Chronicle) say that consuming marihuana while driving is "ill-advised" when you don't think that's the case.

[Comrade Grumpy]

85. Marijuana advocates say that because it isn't politically palatable to say...

"We know veteran pot smokers have logged millions of miles behind the wheel without increasing the danger on our highways."

Because they realize they are dealing with a public that doesn't understand the nuances of psychopharmacology and expects that being high on pot is "like" being drunk on alcohol. There are qualitative differences in the way the two drugs affect us.

Again, nobody wants impaired drivers. Punish drivers who are impaired, not drivers who have the wrong chemicals in their blood.

[B Calm]

109. You can test positive for pot for 30 days after smoking it.

[Pitagoras]

111. I know. And the levels of THC in the blood would be minuscule after 30 days

Which is why what is being debated in the article in the OP is not whether Marihuana impairs driving, but how much in THC levels in your system impairs driving.

[eridani]

113. Utterly meaningless. Cannabis in the blood is no indication of impairment

It means you did a spliff 4 weeks before the accident.

[OwnedByCats]

64. All I know is

the two times I smoked pot in my life, there was no way in hell I could drive. Maybe it's because I'm not a regular smoker, I don't know. But both times I could barely see straight, much less operate a car, and no, I was not drinking alcohol with it. Not everyone has the same experiences with drugs. They effect people differently. I think a good rule of thumb is to make sure you don't need to drive before smoking. Do it at home, or walking distance from home, or have a designated driver. My aunt used to smoke pot all the time, but she never drove afterward.

[Anomalism]

83. RE

Anybody that smokes pot and then drives is an idiot.

[OwnedByCats]

91. I agree it shouldn't be

done, at the risk of offending those who claim they "drive better while on pot".

[bluesbassman]

96. Nice first post. Is that your professional opinion or are you just winging it?

FWIW, I don't smoke at all, but I know a lot that do and their ability to drive and engage in other coordinated activities is directly related to the strain of weed they smoke and the amount, similar to alcohol consumption. So if I drink a beer or glass of wine at dinner, does that make me an idiot too?

BTW, welcome to DU.

[DonCoquixote]

65. teh crimes is not listed as driving while drunk

It is Driving while Intoxicated. All they need to do is determine how mcuh weed will make you intoxicated.

[Bohunk68]

67. Doesn't surprise me in the least

that the police and the prison industry would be on the same page with this. Follow the money.

[Art_from_Ark]

68. I was once in a car on a cross-country trip

with people who were smoking dope, and all I can say is...

NEVER AGAIN!

[Veruca Salt]

69. No driving under the influence. Full stop.

Back in my own stoner days I was the safest driver ever while high but also very lucky. I can think of a number of incidents that could have been avoided had my senses not been dulled. I've always been an advocate for legalising pot and want a responsible pot culture to go with it.

[Major Nikon]

71. The biggest risk from Marijuana is making really shitty music seem good

Furthermore the problem seems to be getting worse. California weed can make modem noises sound like fucking Beethoven. There's no other explanation for Skrillex.

[Jesus Malverde]

72. bath salts....nt

[Major Nikon]

73. OK, one other explanation

[ChisolmTrailDem]

79. Really? How about you provide some of your stuff so you can be critiqued? At

least that way we'd have something on which to gauge your knowledge v. all other "music".

[Major Nikon]

90. Here you go

[mike_c]

76. this whole debate demonstrates the damage that alcohol abuse has done to society....

The question of whether or not one can operate a vehicle safely after using cannabis is dictated almost entirely by nearly a century's experience with driving under the influence of alcohol. The underlying assumption is that users are "impaired" and therefore that any cannabis use increases the risk of accidents and makes driving less safe for everyone. That fundamental assumption has not thus far been borne out by reality-- in the few instances where effects on driving have been properly studied, cannabis shows little threat to public safety on the roads-- yet "driving while impaired" has become a social meme around the world, nearly always by comparison with alcohol abuse. And while the plural of anecdote might not be data, there are many, many anecdotal accounts of drivers who become super careful and attentive while stoned, rather than reckless and lacking judgment.

So far I think this whole discussion is mostly a solution, looking for a problem that really doesn't exist much. And just another smoke screen by those who profit the most from the war on drugs.

[PeaceNikki]

78. Amen.

Having lived my entire adult life with alcohol abusers - afuckingmen.

[wercal]

82. You missed this study:

"in the few instances where effects on driving have been properly studied, cannabis shows little threat to public safety on the roads"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-smoking-motorists-twice-as-likely-to-crash-cars/

Its actually nine studies, involving 50k people.

They determined risk was 1.75 higher of being in a crash, if THC was in system.

[mike_c]

87. did you read it?

It's somewhat flawed, although that does not necessarily make it wrong-- it just reduces confidence in the results. First and foremost, they used ONLY data from drivers who had crashes resulting in injury or death, and specifically excluded any data from cannabis users who did NOT have accidents. It seems to me that's a test of an altogether different hypothesis than the one the authors published, i.e. people who have accidents are somewhat more likely to have used cannabis than not, but that is certainly NOT the same as establishing a causal relationship between cannabis consumption and impaired operation.

Second, it's a meta-analysis that specifically excluded experimental and simulation data, which tends to provide evidence contrary to the authors' assertions. They excluded a LOT of data, and cherry-picked what they themselves defined as "high quality" data sets based on a priori conditions that they defined. I'm always suspicious about that sort of data selection.

Finally-- and I've read the paper a couple of times, but still find this unclear-- the authors say that they've eliminated bias caused by concurrent alcohol use by only using data about serum or urine THC and cannabidiol concentrations, which are inherently misleading by themselves due to long system retention times without any detectable "impairment," but also because the authors are not clear about how this omission screened out alcohol abuse bias-- it SOUNDS as though they simply ignored any data about concurrent use, rather than using such data to screen out confounding factors. But later they again note that ignoring confounding issues removed them from the analysis, which doesn't make sense, so I hope I'm just misunderstanding that part of their methods.

[wercal]

95. Well the bar has been moved

From:

"in the few instances where effects on driving have been properly studied, cannabis shows little threat to public safety on the roads"

to an acknowledgement that at least one study exists...but its 'flawed' in your opinion.

This isn't some tabloid...this study is published in the British Medical Journal, open for all to scrutinize and tear apart. The authors very bluntly claim that their study confirms that they have determined THC to be a contributing factor in accidents...and so far the BMJ lists 4 responses, with only two of them disputing the study's methodology. Its stood up pretty well, and I don't think its outrageous to err on the side of caution, and not drive while under the effects of THC.

[Bennyboy]

84. B-I-N-G-O!

IT IS NOT ANYTHING AT ALL LIKE ALCOHOL.

[wercal]

81. I really can't believe what I am reading on this thread

A bunch of Mary Jane warriors who are just positive that it doesn't impair their driving.

To them I ask: "What does it mean to be stoned?"

Really, does 'stoned' mean acting normally, like you would any other day? Of course not. The term 'stoned' implies that people who are high on THC act differently than how they normally would.

So here's an idea. If you are tired, distracted, drunk, or stoned, stay off of the roads.

Here's a link to a story about a study, which I'm sure will be dismissed as some sort of propaganda:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-smoking-motorists-twice-as-likely-to-crash-cars/

[Comrade Grumpy]

86. How about we punish drivers who actually impaired?

And speaking of relative risk, better a pot head than a cell phone user or radio dial changer:

"Engaging in visual-manual subtasks (such as reaching for a phone, dialing and texting) associated with the use of hand-held phones and other portable devices increased the risk of getting into a crash by three times. (VTTI)"

http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/facts-and-statistics.html

[Pitagoras]

92. Instead of comparing it to cell phone driving, why don't you compare it to sober driving?

Then we'll see what the odds are for the two.

If cell phone use increases the chances by 3x and marihuana increases it be 2x, should driving while high on marihuana be legal because it's not 3x?

Another question: Is there no thc dose that increases risk by 3x or more? How much is too much to drive?

[wercal]

99. Last I checked, texting while driving is illegal in my state

I have no idea why that has anything to do with driving while on THC.

And frankly it laughable when people throw out the "you're more distracted while changing the radio" claim. So what, first of all. But even if it mattered, then wouldn't somebody who is both stoned and changing the radio station be a bigger menace than a sober person changing the station?

Nobody wants to answer the question....what is "stoned". When you look at a guy and say "he's stoned", how did you know that? What about his behavior led you to that conclusion? The answer is obvious - people who are stoned don't act in the same outward fashion as people who are sober. To me it just seems patently obvious that its dangerous to drive stoned...it affects your reflexes.

I really can't believe that people on this thread are practically bragging about driving while impaired.

[Jesus Malverde]

88. Reading the actual study, they didn't omit drunk drivers....

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536.pdf%2Bhtml

In all studies assessing cannabis use in conjunction with alcohol, the estimated odds ratio for cannabis and alcohol combined was higher than for cannabis use alone, suggesting the presence of a synergistic effect

[wercal]

97. Well I guess a laughing smiley ends the debate

The red herring that alcohol is worse doesn't mean a thing.

[Pitagoras]

107. You're wrong. That's a review of studies, not "the actual study", as if it were only one

A review of several studies was made.

Before you posted the smiley, you copy and pasted a paragraph that tells you that several studies were reviewed. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that in "the actual study" they didn't omit drunk drivers. In fact, the conclusion of the review included the effects of cannabis without alcohol, contrary to what you said:

"Results We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003);"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277079/

[RainDog]

106. I would prefer that people don't toke and drive within a 2 hour period

...which is the window the study you reference noted as well, although they later discussed a three-hour window. This window would be the indication of high levels of intoxication with changes in visual perception.

I also don't want people who are drunk, under the influence of a medication that makes them woozy, texting on the phone, etc. driving either. So I don't have a problem with promoting safe driving by not driving within that window, and I think we need to use saliva tests to get accurate assessments because of the issue of medical cannabis users and the level of metabolites in their systems which are only indicative of prior use outside of the two-hour window. (Cannabis immediately begins chemical changes that create metabolites, and THC is not one of those metabolites. THC is the issue for impairment.)

An older (1993) dept. of trans (DOT) study found that “THC is not a profoundly impairing drug… It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual’s ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving” (“Marijuana and Actual Performance,” DOT-HS-808-078).

What that study found is that drivers slowed down or increased their focus on driving itself and, thus, caused little concern for driving performance (driving is sometimes done by sober people in an "autopilot" way when the route is well known, or someone is driving a long distance on a highway)

The study referenced in your link does show a connection between very intoxicated (based upon blood level tests) cannabis-only (not alcohol combined) users and fatal accidents compared to sober drivers. The study also notes non-fatal accident reports are more difficult to assess because of the refusal of so many to take any sort of blood test to determine whether or not any substance was present, so the assessment of fatal accidents provides more accurate data.

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536

What you often see here on DU are people who have become inured to studies that confirm drug warrior stances because of the long history of lies about the effects of cannabis. Studies that have been used to create laws in the U.S. have been based upon false evidence that was produced to get the desired results. (The famous Reagan-era study that suffocated chimps then claimed marijuana, rather than suffocation, was killing brain cells is one of the most egregious examples.)

Rather than attack those who have doubts about the validity of studies based upon this history, it's probably a better tactic to acknowledge such people have valid skepticism, but new studies may reveal other information.

ymmv.

[Tikki]

101. How can there be a debate…you drive while under the influence of pot you shouldn't drive and...

you are breaking the law.

Tikki

[DesertFlower]

103. there's no way i could smoke pot

and drive.