Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Yeah, that murder rate is scary.
as far as insults go, that was pretty vanilla.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Again:
Using current scientific evidence on cannabis-induced impairment of psychomotor skills and the related accident risk, this paper suggests a range of 7-10 ng/ml THC in the serum for an initial non-zero per se limit. It offers reasonably reliable separation of drivers whose driving is in fact impaired by cannabis from those who are not impaired.
I bolded the part you potheads keep ignoring.
Using current scientific evidence on cannabis-induced impairment of psychomotor skills and the related accident risk, this paper suggests a range of 7-10 ng/ml THC in the serum for an initial non-zero per se limit. It offers reasonably reliable separation of drivers whose driving is in fact impaired by cannabis from those who are not impaired.
I bolded the part you potheads keep ignoring.
GVC
Well-Known Member
No one is ignoring that, dim-witted Jesus nut.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
We might be stuck in a loop here. You don't seem to understand that this is the low level, also referred to as the initial non-zero limit. The study puts that into terms you can understand in several places, here are the excerpts I already posted on that (bolded some parts for you too):
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, while 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]."
I honestly don't think you understand what this means. You continue to argue that this means the driver is impaired.
I posted about this earlier (may have been in the other thread?) but 0.05% BAC (which is what this study is saying between 7 and 10 ng/ml of marijuana is equal to as far as driving is concerned) is not legally impaired. Utah has the strictest DUI laws in the nation, no state has a lower BAC limit for a DUI. Utah's legal BAC limit is 0.08%. So that is legally impaired, 0.05% is not. And it should be noted that several states have legally impaired limits of 0.10% BAC.
So when this study says that between 7 and 10 ng/ml of marijuana is equal to 0.05% BAC (driving) it is absolutely not saying that you are too impaired to drive. It is comparing it to a legally unimpaired alcohol level. And not even really close to being legally impaired, but only roughly halfway to the legally impaired alcohol limit.
In basic English, this means the person starts to become impaired at this point, but their driving does not. They detected the same amount of impairment as a person who has had half a beer or whatever, but is still legal to drive (AKA legally not impaired).
GVC
Well-Known Member
It doesn't mean that. It only means that their impairment level is not illegal. They're still impaired, and their driving is affected by that impairment, just not to the degree that they're deemed "dangerous" or worthy of prosecution.
Last edited:
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Exactly what I've been saying all along. Salty has been claiming from the beginning that weed doesn't affect your driving and that if it does you can use certain techniques to mitigate it. Oh, but you won't drive anyway cuz you'll be so high you'll just hang on the couch. Yet he uses the tomato tamato post like it is just a question of semantics or some grammatical problem. Laughable.
GVC
Well-Known Member
You wouldn't go to court if you blew a .05. This really isn't that hard to understand. The legal limit is .08%, not .05%.
Edit: Here are Utah's laws: https://www.sentencing.utah.gov/DUI/DUI_BEST_PRACTICES.pdf
Last edited: