CONAN
Well-Known Member
It's from the study you posted, Einstein.
Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Where does it say one puff is enough to put a smoker over the limits in that study? I think you are making crap up again.It's from the study you posted, Einstein.
Just so we're clear, the five ng/mL limit in that study doesn't mean just because you aren't identical to a drug free user then you must be dangerous. It's not saying you are dangerous above that level, just that drivers at that level are the same as drug free drivers.
The top of page 4, right column, says:
"In blind ratings, police officers rated drivers with a BAC of 0.08% as more impaired than those who had taken moderate to high doses of cannabis, and driving instructors rated subjects with a BAC of 0.04% as impaired, whie those who had consumed a dose equivalent to 7 mg of THC were rated as unimpaired."
Bottom of page 6, left column:
"...suggests that a serum of THC concentration of 12-16 ng/ml may correspond to the same accident risk as a BAC of 0.05% [12]."
So even though it is saying 5 ng/ml is the same risk as drug free people, it is also saying significantly higher concentrations than that are not much more of a risk, and similar to legal alcohol limits.
Page 6, right column, talks about how much THC smoked translates into how much shows up in the blood. I don't see anywhere saying 1 puff puts you over the limit in the studies. It has too much for me to waste my time typing verbatim here, but I will post this excerpt:
"... a male weighing 70 kg and smoking a THC dose of 19 mg will, after 3 hours, present with a a serum concentration of 4.9 ng/ml..."
Not sure where you are seeing that 19 mg = 1 puff, but please point it out so I can understand where you are coming from. Or if you're just making crap up again, I guess it should have been expected.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
LOL at posting a study and not even reading it. You posted it but now you want me to hold your hand and sift through it. Nice. You're lazy.
The point is that there is a level where smoking weed affects your driving in a bad way. We've said it all along in this thread and your study even says it.
The point is that there is a level where smoking weed affects your driving in a bad way. We've said it all along in this thread and your study even says it.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
I'm not asking you to hold my hand on anything. I'm asking you to stop making crap up and claiming it's true. I read the study and posted the relevant parts that debunk what you claimed.
Yes, I know there is a point where marijuana affects driving in a bad way. I have said that from the beginning. My point is that limit is so high most pot smokers don't normally hit it, and it is not a significant enough problem to justify keeping marijuana illegal. There is a point where too much of anything will affect driving in a bad way, it doesn't mean it should automatically be illegal.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
That is a change from your original stance so nice job seeing the light.
Now if you want to argue where that limit is than fine. Your study says the limit is 5 ng/ml in blood. And that same study says that can be reached with one puff easily.
There's also obviously a time limit on how messed up you are and many factors go into how long that lasts. But it does exist and driving during that period is not good. And there are no ninja secret driving techniques that mitigate the effects.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Nice try, but typical of trollnan. Here is a quote from my first post in this thread:
Click that little arrow next to my name in the quote and it will link you to the post.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Driving completely unimpaired >>>>> Driving with ANY impairment or possibility of impairment (2 beers, tired, texting, a few puffs of weed, cell phone glued to your ear, etc.)
Yes, let's split hairs while we figure out how impaired one could/should/might/might not be while piloting a 2000 POUND WEAPON with the potential to KILL anything it hits. Moran.
Yes, let's split hairs while we figure out how impaired one could/should/might/might not be while piloting a 2000 POUND WEAPON with the potential to KILL anything it hits. Moran.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
No need to wait while we figure it out. The study I posted says, as pointed out in a previous post:
"In blind ratings, police officers rated drivers with a BAC of 0.08% as more impaired than those who had taken moderate to high doses of cannabis, and driving instructors rated subjects with a BAC of 0.04% as impaired, while those who had consumed a dose equivalent to 7 mg of THC were rated as unimpaired."
and
"...suggests that a serum of THC concentration of 12-16 ng/ml may correspond to the same accident risk as a BAC of 0.05% [12]."
So, again, just because you aren't the exact same as someone who is totally drug free, it doesn't mean your driving is dangerous enough to make the substance illegal. High doses of marijuana tend to make people drive like someone who is still legal under the alcohol driving laws. Way under the legal alcohol limit, actually. And driving instructors were not able to detect any impairment at all.
People need to get past the generalities of saying "You are impaired, therefore your driving must be." It's not that simple. Not everything that impairs you, the person, will also make your driving more dangerous.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
How dangerous do we need drivers to be? Is the potential for maybe maiming someone ok, but killing someone is bad? I just can't believe the arguments going around that driving in any way impaired would in some way be considered "ok".
As far as a person being impaired but their driving not being impaired, well that is ludicrous in the extreme. I am high and find the color red so fascinating that I just want to stare at it all day, but hey, my driving might be just fine. But I will go ahead and potentially put other people at risk until the pro-weed people decide whether it impairs me or not. What?
In no way can any sane individual argue that driving under the influence of ANYTHING is as good as driving under NO influence at all. It is a stupid argument.
Really these types of arguments and discussion are what makes it hard to rally support for the pro-legalization movement. When you come across as some kind of nutjob to any rational people trying to convince people that hallucinations might, well hey they might make me a better driver, who knows? The studies haven't confirmed yet whether or not intense fixation on cheetoes is good or bad for driving or life or whatever. The arguments are so irrational it just undermines any chance of getting support for legalization. And the need to constantly defend against any and all other arguments to the contrary make you come across as double crazy. To flat out deny that the possibility of driving impaired COULD be bad and try to refute it with pro-pot "evidence" is just ridiculous. Of course driving completely unimpaired beats driving "possibly" impaired.
You gotta get some public support for the initiative or it won't happen, and taking crackpot stances on every single topic doesn't help.
I agree. On that same point I think driving under the influence of Benadryl should be illegal since it is well known to cause drowsiness, and alertness is a critical component of driving. I'm also at a loss on why the legal status of any drug or substance should take driving into account, since the theory behind driving is that you should be alert when driving and there are plenty of legal ways to decrease alertness. It's just that people concentrate on mind altering ways to not be alert as opposed to using a cell phone or eating or putting on makeup or numerous other things people do behind the wheel, yet the idea of making those precursor actions (using a cell phone in general, putting on makeup at home or in a bathroom, etc.) is absurd. Yet for some reason the idea of making intoxication by itself on certain substances is widely celebrated. I fail to see the rationale behind the latter (or more accurately, I see the rationale but don't believe it is strong).
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Typical baseless scare tactics.
Nobody acts the way you described when they smoke weed. And there have been studies done. You keep saying it hasn't been determined, yes, it actually has. Please see my last few posts where I posted and quoted some studies on the matter.
Once you get past the scare tactics, and get to actual facts here, there is nothing wrong with being impaired in some manner as long as it doesn't affect your driving.
Listening to music impairs you. Does it affect your driving? If it's way louder than most people listen to it it certainly does, but it certainly isn't enough of an issue to justify making car stereos illegal.
Sure, you can use scare tactics and say "Any impairment at all makes it less safe than no impairment at all when driving a 2000 pound weapon that kills." But then you have to consider just how much it impairs. Should we outlaw tight pants? Should we outlaw hot chicks walking or jogging? Should we outlaw hot coffee? Where do you draw the line?
As has been pointed out in studies posted, someone who takes a high dosage of marijuana still drives like someone who is well under the legal alcohol driving limit, with driving instructors not even able to detect any impairment at all.
Scare tactics talking about loving red and hallucinations and other such nonsense only trump the facts when dealing with morons who buy into scare tactics.