Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Okay man, not sure what your deal is but I'll fill you in, just in case you're being serious and don't know what we're talking about.
A couple of people said they think weed should be legal but driving after smoking weed is a bad idea. We are talking about how you can or can't have weed and driving without driving after weed (legal).
It's not a crap discussion. It's actually very civil and interesting. So if you care to join in, go ahead, others are discussing it with us. But so far your post is the only crap post around here.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
No, the impairment studies were all under 5 ng/ml. So the universal was 5 ng/ml meaning no matter where you if you are at 5 ng/ml you are messed up. And it does say people can walk around with THC in their system but still be fine but that level is 2 ng/nl. There are some that say the limit should be more like 7-10 just to be safe.
That's why they test blood. The amount of weed needed to get you to that point will certainly vary.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
1: You read the study wrong. The study said that people with 5 ng/ml still drove with no more risk than drug free drivers. It also said that drivers who had consumed 7mg were rated as unimpaired (don't know what that translates into the blood though) and a serum of THC concentration of 12-16 ng/ml may correspond to the same accident risk as a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.05% (which is a legal alcohol concentration, roughly halfway to the legal limit of 0.08% in Utah, 0.10% in many other states). It doesn't say a limit of 2 ng/ml is suggested.
2: The amount of weed in your system is not indicative of how much weed you smoked within the hour (or couple hours, whatever). It just shows how much you have in your system (which could be from weeks or even months ago). How much weed is in your system depends on your tolerance. Some people retain it longer than others.
If you read the study, it actually suggest 2 different limits and says you can't really put a number on this.
GVC
Well-Known Member
At the end of the day, an increased risk of automobile accidents is not a sufficient reason to lock people up for possessing/smoking pot. We don't lock people up for owning cell phones, we don't lock people up for owning makeup, we don't lock people up for having prescribed medications, we don't lock people up for driving 20 MPH over the limit, etc.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on how big that increased risk is.
For most of those things though, in order to charge someone with it there has to be a witness. You can't really charge someone with putting on makeup while driving unless there is a witness that says they saw someone putting on makeup. That doesn't really apply to someone who smoked some weed and then hopped in the car for a munchie run.
I can see where you are coming from. I just can't imagine how the law would be enforced on a fair and consistent basis. Basically, anyone with any THC in their system would be subject to a DUI at any time, even when sober, if the cop woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point.
Agreed. It suggests 7-10.
I fail to see the relevance here. You're not trying to find out how much someone smokes or what their tolerance is. You're trying to see if they're high (7-10). If you walk around at 10+ ng/nl that means you walk around high.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
So people can drive high like a boss. But if they are really, really high they suck at driving. And it won't matter though cuz they won't want to drive anyway so no big deal cuz they're so damn high. And even if they did there are pothead ninja driving techniques that mitigate the effects.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
1: The study suggested 2 seperate levels. It said there is no way to put a single number on when someone becomes impaired. If you didn't see that, then you misread it.
2: You still don't seem to understand that while one person may smoke some weed and 10 minutes later show a hypothetical level of 10 ng/ml and be high as heck, the next person may not smoke any weed at all (that day) and show a hypothetical level of 10 ng/ml and be stone cold sober.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
No, that's what what I said at all. In a nutshell (and I have spelled this out) I was saying that I think smoking weed and driving is no big deal. Yes, you can smoke so much weed you pass out at some point so at some point you will be in no condition to drive. But by the time you reach that point you will probably not be able to bring yourself to drive anyway. If it is such a rare thing to happen, then we don't need any laws regarding it.So people can drive high like a boss. But if they are really, really high they suck at driving. And it won't matter though cuz they won't want to drive anyway so no big deal cuz they're so damn high. And even if they did there are pothead ninja driving techniques that mitigate the effects.
That's the current reality.