|
The odds ratio of being in a fatal car accident with cannabis in your system is 1.25 according to this meta-analysis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22785089 That's well within the legally acceptable range of risk for driving under the influence of alcohol. At the legal limit (BAC 0.08) the odds ratio of being in a fatal crash is 13.00: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22563862
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
RichieWolk posted:The difference between the alcoholic saying they're good to drive and the stoner is the stoner has verifiable claims while drunk driving kills thousands every year. From the conclusions of the NORML link you posted (which isn't exactly an unbiased source) quote:The above review illustrates the need for further education and understanding regarding the effects of cannabis upon driving behavior. While its adverse impact on psychomotor skills is less severe than the effects of alcohol, driving under the acute influence of cannabis still may pose an elevated risk of accident in certain situations, especially among inexperienced cannabis consumers. However, because marijuana's psychomotor impairment is subtle and short-lived, consumers can greatly reduce this risk by refraining from driving for a period of several hours immediately following their cannabis use. And, you admit yourself that it's possible to "smoke yourself to the point where you're actually dangerous on the road." You're just asking people to take the other half of your argument on faith, though - that someone who's dangerously impaired will necessarily realize it. Personally, I can give a pretty conservative estimate of my own BAC. I've tested it with an honest to god calibrated Intoxilyzer and my "I don't feel safe to drive" level is below 0.08. I'm still not going to go around saying "hey, it's perfectly fine to drink and then drive, just make sure you feel like you're 'sober enough' first. I can do it, DUI laws are bullshit!" The same is true of marijuana. It's certainly possible that some people are able to accurately judge their own impairment - but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone can. And, when it comes to operating heavy machinery in public, "better safe than sorry" isn't a bad principle. Even if you're an MMJ patient, there are other medicines that make it unsafe to drive, too. Simply taking them doesn't mean that you get to engage in behavior that's potentially very risky to everyone else. As for your asset forfeiture argument, I'd point out that neither Washington nor Colorado (who are taking the lead on this for obvious reasons) have laws that allow for the permanent forfeiture of vehicles because the driver was under the influence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:From the conclusions of the NORML link you posted (which isn't exactly an unbiased source) While I don't disagree with the notion that there's a risk of driving impaired with MJ (as with any cause of an impaired condition) I think that there's little reason to believe additional laws pertaining specifically to driving high will change much. Access is already rather plentiful, there's a good chance that the people who would drive while high already do and are already (  ) baked into the current DWI statistics. Not all impaired drivers are high and not all smokers will drive while high. If anything, the kind of people currently refraining from marijuana use due to local laws would probably not drive high, and anyone that would drive while high were weed legal everywhere probably does now anyway.Add to that the various effects of cannabis that don't lend themselves to choosing to drive. It's been a long time but my choice was invariably "gently caress that poo poo, I'm playing goddamn Secret of Mana and I'm ordering food" or raiding my fridge. I don't want to really plant a flag and die on the 'weed makes you lazy' hill but in all honesty when you're high you probably find better things to do than go and drive around. Unless you are the kind that smokes alone and then goes and sees friends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
They're not approving "bars" for marijuana are they? That seems like it would dramatically decrease the possibility of DUIs occurring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Luckily the whole 'you can drive while stoned, its easy!' argument doesn't matter, as the only two states where it is legal have laws against too much THC in your system while driving. And since a legalization effort failed in California due to fears of stoners weaving wildly down the highway, for the foreseeable future all legalization efforts will very likely contain a similar clause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Is it still impossible to test for the THC levels? Aside from a blood test which a cop doesn't have off-hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
WA requires a blood test, not sure about CO. Not sure how it works but a urine test is far too inaccurate for proper testing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They're not approving "bars" for marijuana are they? That seems like it would dramatically decrease the possibility of DUIs occurring. Lots of bars in Washington had private smoking lounges to get around indoor smoking laws and all they had to do was say "Weed's cool, too."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Colorado's weed-DUI law is actually very progressive in this regard and recognizes that marijuana is far different than alcohol: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/driving-stoned-bill-up-for-vote-in-colorado-house-tuesday quote:House Bill 1114 would presume drivers are too stoned if their blood contains more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Thank god, 5 ng/ml is so drat low it's insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Just a mention of a couple recent news blurbs (no links, but easy enough to find if anyone cares) that I saw and are relevant to the topic at hand: A Montana judge said that he didn't like minimum sentencing standards in a case involving a medical cannabis grower and gave the very minimumest sentence he could. I got the impression that he would have just fined the guy a dollar and 20 hours community service if he could. The other was just a few days ago and mentioned a WA (maybe Seattle?) police dept. looking to train sniffing dogs to ignore weed. Ripples in the pond kinda stuff, a hopeful sign of changing societal attitudes at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Thank god, 5 ng/ml is so drat low it's insane. 5ng/ml is very little... for a urine test. Its quite a bit for a blood test. Not to mention that to hit 5ng/ml from a blood test you would have to be currently high, the amount of THC in blood decreases very quickly. Remember: blood test is radically different than urine test. (Looking for a reference for all this, but its hard to find decent papers on something that became 'legal' a few months ago) Edit: Found a good link - http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html#blood quote:Unlike urine tests, blood tests detect the active presence of THC in the bloodstream. In the case of smoked marijuana, THC peaks rapidly in the first few minutes after inhaling, often to levels above 100 ng/ml in blood plasma. It then declines quickly to single-digit levels within an hour. High THC levels are therefore a good indication that the subject has smoked marijuana recently. THC can remain at low but detectable levels of 1-2 ng/ml for 8 hours or more without any measurable signs of impairment in one-time users. In chronic users, detectable amounts of blood THC can persist for days. In one study of chronic users, residual THC was detected for 24 to 48 hours or longer at levels of 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood (1.0 - 6.4 ng/ml in serum) [Skopp and Potsch]. So just don't drive high. Its a very small price to pay for legalization, and not worth worrying/complaining about. Mrit fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
I agree; it is a very small price to pay indeed. However, your quoted numbers there show that a regular user can be at up to 3.2 ng/ml for days after the person last smoked. In that scenario, it's possible that the person could be above 5ng/ml 24+ hours after last smoking. It's basically saying "If you are a daily user, you may not ever be sober enough to drive." So: not a huge deal. But still something that needs to get worked out, preferably in a manner similar to that bill referenced a few posts above me. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Mrit posted:5ng/ml is very little... for a urine test. Its quite a bit for a blood test. Not to mention that to hit 5ng/ml from a blood test you would have to be currently high that link you posted in the same post posted:In one study of chronic users, residual THC was detected for 24 to 48 hours or longer at levels of 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood If a chronic stoner is at 3.2 ng/ml sober, do you think that 5 ng/ml is really high enough to be too impaired to drive safely? quote:So just don't drive high. Its a very small price to pay for legalization, and not worth worrying/complaining about. I think it is worth worrying and complaining about! If laws get passed that set marijuana DUI limits at an arbitrarily low number, many otherwise law-abiding citizens could be ticketed or even arrested for Good thing marijuana is still a schedule I substance so we're forbidden from getting actual meaningful numbers for making beneficial DUI laws! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Hopefully now in WA and CO there is enough freedom to do better scientific testing than what we've had previously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:If a chronic stoner is at 3.2 ng/ml sober, do you think that 5 ng/ml is really high enough to be too impaired to drive safely? This part from the link is more relevant. quote:
Edit: Also, I don't think it will even be an issue. As far as I know they will have to take you to the police station to draw blood. If you are over 5ng after a trip to the station you would have to have baked out of your mind when you were driving. Mrit fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
As a smoker who lives in WA what it comes down to for me is regardless of how low the limit is you need to give them a reason to pull you over in the first place. So don't smoke when you feel impaired and drive safe and it's not going to be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Squarb posted:As a smoker who lives in WA what it comes down to for me is regardless of how low the limit is you need to give them a reason to pull you over in the first place. So don't smoke when you feel impaired and drive safe and it's not going to be a problem. How many people really drive around without giving cops "a reason" to pull them over in the first place though? Speeding, not signaling, rolling through stop signs, cheating on traffic lights, blocking intersections, etc.. People do this stuff all the time, and I'm sure most of them would consider themselves safe/good drivers. Edit: Although I guess I don't know what they need in order to go from pulled over for speeding -> drawing blood to test for the weed. tk fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
tk posted:How many people really drive around without giving cops "a reason" to pull them over in the first place though? Speeding, not signaling, rolling through stop signs, cheating on traffic lights, blocking intersections, etc.. People do this stuff all the time, and I'm sure most of them would consider themselves safe/good drivers. With the exception of speeding, all of those are always more dangerous for them and everyone around them, so they aren't safe/good drivers/
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
tk posted:Edit: Although I guess I don't know what they need in order to go from pulled over for speeding -> drawing blood to test for the weed. http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf Here's the text of I-502, part V, which is what amends the drunk driving codes starts on page 45. Basically they need the exact same causes they would need to pull you over for drunk driving. They also must get your consent to draw blood or run a breathalyzer. In keeping with the alcohol reform measures, if you are under 21 and you blow more than .02 or blood more than 0 you can still face a special charge. The 0 part is a little bit worrying, because I think you can get to 1 ng secondhand, but otherwise in Washington it is literally identical to how they currently treat DUIs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I enjoy jumping to conclusions about things I couldn't possibly understand and have never experienced. Umph fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Umph posted:On second thought I don't want to drag a deceased friends information into this. Consider keeping catchphrases in GBS however. But your story sounds like complete bullshit. Your friend smoked pot laced with formaldehyde(which literally never happens) and then died in a car wreck? Really? What is this, sixth grade?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:But your story sounds like complete bullshit. Your friend smoked pot laced with formaldehyde(which literally never happens) and then died in a car wreck? Really? What is this, sixth grade? Yes, my friend smoked adulterated weed and then died in a a car accident in 1998 when he was 16. This did happen. The issue is if it's not a black market substance these things wouldn't happen. I also had 3 friends from high school die from Heroin accidents in the subsequent years. Some died in DWI incidents, some in fights while under the influence of drugs. The dealer had bragged about dipping his cigarettes in the stuff, so we assumed that's what it had been. People became delirious after smoking it. I suppose it could have been something else wrong with it. I was nearly speared to death by an aboriginal in Australia, shot in Mexico, and robbed in Mumbai. Would you like to call me a liar on something I can prove happened that doesn't require me giving internet detectives the name of a dead child for the sake of an e-argument? Since when in D&D are peoples' antidotes called into question in this manner? What does sixth grade have to do with anything? A young human died while operating machinery while intoxicated on adulterated marijuana. Sorry if that information or the fact that I was acquainted with him offends your worldviews in some way. Umph fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf Having a brother who is both an ex pothead and currently a cop, I can tell you right now that a cop can pull you over for drat near any reason. Is your license plate too dirty to read? pulled. No front plate in a state that requires it? pulled. Driving alone in the middle of the night with no other cars out? pulled. Ask me how I know this one. I got stopped twice by 2 separate state troopers when I was driving home from Texas to CO because it was a Saturday night and I was the only car on the road, so they just assumed I was drunk. No ticket either time but they both "claimed" I was speeding when I was staring at the loving speedometer and doing exactly the limit after the first pull.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Umph posted:Yes, my friend smoked adulterated weed and then died in a a car accident in 1998 when he was 16. This did happen. The issue is if it's not a black market substance these things wouldn't happen. I also had 3 friends from high school die from Heroin accidents in the subsequent years. Some died in DWI incidents, some in fights while under the influence of drugs. The dealer had bragged about dipping his cigarettes in the stuff, so we assumed that's what it had been. People became delirious after smoking it. I suppose it could have been something else wrong with it. Your story is sounding more and more like bullshit. How would you even know that he smoked laced marijuana in that incident? Squarb posted:As a smoker who lives in WA what it comes down to for me is regardless of how low the limit is you need to give them a reason to pull you over in the first place. So don't smoke when you feel impaired and drive safe and it's not going to be a problem. Driving while black is still an issue. Cops can pull you over for drat near anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Your story is sounding more and more like bullshit. How would you even know that he smoked laced marijuana in that incident? Because DARE taught him that anytime someone has an adverse reaction to weed, it was obviously laced with Angel dust or bleach or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
If anything it was probably sherm (PCP laced weed). A friend has a family member that got some (on purpose) and had a mental breakdown leading to a hospital stay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:If anything it was probably sherm (PCP laced weed). A friend has a family member that got some (on purpose) and had a mental breakdown leading to a hospital stay. This is where the "formaldehyde" myth comes from. Formaldehyde isn't psychoactive - however, the world "formaldehyde" is a street name for PCP in many places. If you've had formaldehyde dipped marijuana, it's got PCP on it, not literal embalming fluid. Or whoever sold it to you is a moron.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
A cop can find any reason to pull you over if they really want but for the most part they don't. Unless you are driving at a very weird time of night in some weird area then they don't really have a reason to check you for anything. Not driving like a retard will save you from getting pulled over 9/10 times. If you driving isn't affected by the amount of THC currently in your system then you should be pulled over with the exact same frequency as if there was none in your system. If your driving is affected and you get pulled over more often then perhaps you should reconsider if you should be driving and consider getting a ride.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:With the exception of speeding, all of those are always more dangerous for them and everyone around them, so they aren't safe/good drivers/ Well you can define "good/safe" driver however you'd like but if you would exclude everyone who ever does any of that stuff I think the list would be pretty drat small.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Well you can define "good/safe" driver however you'd like but if you would exclude everyone who ever does any of that stuff I think the list would be pretty drat small. Correct, most people are unsafe drivers and also aren't particularly good at driving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Umph posted:Yes, my friend smoked adulterated weed and then died in a a car accident in 1998 when he was 16. This did happen. The issue is if it's not a black market substance these things wouldn't happen. I also had 3 friends from high school die from Heroin accidents in the subsequent years. Some died in DWI incidents, some in fights while under the influence of drugs. The dealer had bragged about dipping his cigarettes in the stuff, so we assumed that's what it had been. People became delirious after smoking it. I suppose it could have been something else wrong with it. I don't mean to continue a pointless derail, but people are supposed to get delirious after smoking weed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
-nevermind-
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I don't mean to continue a pointless derail, but people are supposed to get delirious after smoking weed. Not drug-delirious, just a bit goofy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliriant quote:The delirium produced is characterized by stupor, confusion, confabulation, and regression to "phantom" behaviors such as disrobing and plucking. Other commonly reported behaviors include holding full conversations with imagined people, finishing a complex, multi-stage action (such as getting dressed) and then suddenly discovering one had not even begun yet, and being unable to recognize one's own reflection in a mirror. Deliriants are scary poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:55
|
|
TheGreySpectre posted:A cop can find any reason to pull you over if they really want but for the most part they don't.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Driving while black is still an issue. Cops can pull you over for drat near anything. This is true, then they can ask you to take a breathalyzer/blood test. If you consent, they go off that, if you don't its a complicated process and you could end up in trouble maybe. If you aren't driving right after smoking though (or well after smoking if you are under 21) its not going to be any more of an issue than driving while black currently is. In fact it will be ever so slightly less of an issue, because the smell of weed may be probable cause for a blood test, but is no longer cause to bring out the dogs. A racist cop is still going to be a horrible racist, making driving while high work just like a DUI doesn't really have much bearing on that. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:In fact it will be ever so slightly less of an issue, because the smell of weed may be probable cause for a blood test, but is no longer cause to bring out the dogs. This right here is one of the best things about mj legalization in my opinion. "I smell pot" has been the magical incantation that has allowed cops to completely ignore the 4th amendment and search your car or enter your residence without consent. Its happened to me, a white male, on a number of occasions and I would be willing to bet it has happened to literally every black person in the US. I'm totally fine with a low bar DUI test if it takes that away from the police. Although I'm sure some enterprising police force will come up with a brilliant new way to legally toss black people's cars, at least that particular end run around the constitution will be taken off the table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:If you aren't driving right after smoking though (or well after smoking if you are under 21) its not going to be any more of an issue than driving while black currently is. YOUR POST posted:In one study of chronic users, residual THC was detected for 24 to 48 hours or longer at levels of 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood (1.0 - 6.4 ng/ml in serum)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
So it basically means you can't drive for a bit while after getting high. Is that really that terrible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This right here is one of the best things about mj legalization in my opinion. "I smell pot" has been the magical incantation that has allowed cops to completely ignore the 4th amendment and search your car or enter your residence without consent. Its happened to me, a white male, on a number of occasions and I would be willing to bet it has happened to literally every black person in the US. I'm totally fine with a low bar DUI test if it takes that away from the police. Although I'm sure some enterprising police force will come up with a brilliant new way to legally toss black people's cars, at least that particular end run around the constitution will be taken off the table. How does legalization change this? "I smell pot" is still the same as "I smell liquor on your breath". It can still be used as a pretense to get you out of the car, pat you down, and search your vehicle. Whether or not the search is legal doesn't really matter. The cop will claim ignorance and will never face any repercussions unless the incident goes horribly wrong and someone dies. Maybe not even then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 15:40
|
|
