Driving whilst high

[SonSzu]

I didn't read the entire published study, so I won't support or reject it, but a quick skim of the linked webpage shows that increased population doesn't seem to be the cause of the effect, here. They are measuring frequency "per insured vehicle year", not total frequency, and also they attempted to control for several other extraneous variables.

It's really not that hard to believe that an increase in Cannabis availability could lead to more people driving under the influence, which can be a major issue, especially when it comes to those who don't have high tolerances.

In fact, I find it much harder to believe that being stoned has absolutely no negative effect on the driving ability of at least some people.

I'm still not arguing for the study here, but I don't find the results to be so shocking, especially when you consider the fact that they are covering the whole population, and not just very experienced Cannabis users with high tolerances and many hours on the road.

Do you have any scientific studies that support this claim, or is it just your assumption?

Those """studies""" are only show a vague correlation, there is no causation. These aren't even direct correlations.

Insurance companies have been manipulating basic statistics to increase premiums on targeted demographics since the beginning. These are pretty easily debunked by anyone who has studied science or has taken statistics 101.

Anyone who has studied science understands that even the most comprehensive studies are only a "snapshot" of a much bigger picture. Data is often & easily manipulated to skew in the favor of whomever is funding the study. To legislate so harshly over such superficial findings is lunacy.

You would need a double blind randomized control trial with many different individuals to say decisively one way or another. I'm not aware if this has been done.

I'm not advocating driving after dabbing but lets stop pretending driving under the influence of cannabis is anything like driving under the influence of alcohol. Most heavy tolerance, decade + tokers have been driving high for decades.

Let's not even get into the fact that these legislated legal limits don't take into account different methods of ingestion and how cannabis stays in the body.

I believe that science...rather than what we want to believe...says this is not so.

Cannabis effects reaction times and coordination.

I'm not getting an argument over this as people tend to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

I'm not advocating dabbing then driving.

To equate a teenager taking his first tokes and then driving to a high tolerance, decade plus user is false equivalency. The problem is that the law treats both these individuals the same.

Anecdotal but noteworthy:

Note: After getting them to toke almost a gram... they instructed the drivers to drive faster along the course but edited that out of the video. The few mistakes the drivers made was of course highlighted.

I'm also not interested in arguing or anyone's opinion for that matter.

I'm only interested in experience and facts. It's next to impossible to generalize while speaking factually on a huge demographic like cannabis users.

We'd require double blind randomized trials with a large sample groups.

 

[Baron23]

Those """studies""" are only show a vague correlation, there is no causation. These aren't even direct correlations.

Insurance companies have been manipulating basic statistics to increase premiums on targeted demographics since the beginning. These are pretty easily debunked by anyone who has studied science or has taken statistics 101.

Anyone who has studied science understands that even the most comprehensive studies are only a "snapshot" of a much bigger picture. Data is often & easily manipulated to skew in the favor of whomever is funding the study. To legislate so harshly over such superficial findings is lunacy.

You would need a double blind randomized control trial with many different individuals to say decisively one way or another. I'm not aware if this has been done.

I'm not advocating driving after dabbing but lets stop pretending driving under the influence of cannabis is anything like driving under the influence of alcohol. Most heavy tolerance, decade + tokers have been driving high for decades.

Let's not even get into the fact that these legislated legal limits don't take into account different methods of ingestion and how cannabis stays in the body.



I'm not advocating dabbing then driving.

To equate a teenager taking his first tokes and then driving to a high tolerance, decade plus user is false equivalency. The problem is that the law treats both these individuals the same.

Anecdotal but noteworthy:

Note: After getting them to toke almost a gram... they instructed the drivers to drive faster along the course but edited that out of the video. The few mistakes the drivers made was of course highlighted.

I'm also not interested in arguing or anyone's opinion for that matter.

I'm only interested in experience and facts. It's next to impossible to generalize while speaking factually on a huge demographic like cannabis users.

We'd require double blind randomized trials with a large sample groups.

Sigh.....like I said:

 

[Tranquility]

We'd require double blind randomized trials with a large sample groups.

For fun, look up what is meant by a "double blind" study/trial and see how it is impossible to get what you seem to require as proof in regards to cannabis intoxication and driving.

 

[looney2nz]

Wasn't there a AAA study in the last 2-3 years that showed significantly less impairment than they thought?

 

[TheMasterBlaster]

I can't even begin to count the number of joints I've smoked behind the wheel and my driving record is impeccable. In my case, it's no problemo.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Those """studies""" are only show a vague correlation, there is no causation. These aren't even direct correlations.

Insurance companies have been manipulating basic statistics to increase premiums on targeted demographics since the beginning. These are pretty easily debunked by anyone who has studied science or has taken statistics 101.

Anyone who has studied science understands that even the most comprehensive studies are only a "snapshot" of a much bigger picture. Data is often & easily manipulated to skew in the favor of whomever is funding the study. To legislate so harshly over such superficial findings is lunacy.

You would need a double blind randomized control trial with many different individuals to say decisively one way or another. I'm not aware if this has been done.

I'm not advocating driving after dabbing but lets stop pretending driving under the influence of cannabis is anything like driving under the influence of alcohol. Most heavy tolerance, decade + tokers have been driving high for decades.

Let's not even get into the fact that these legislated legal limits don't take into account different methods of ingestion and how cannabis stays in the body.



I'm not advocating dabbing then driving.

To equate a teenager taking his first tokes and then driving to a high tolerance, decade plus user is false equivalency. The problem is that the law treats both these individuals the same.

Anecdotal but noteworthy:

Note: After getting them to toke almost a gram... they instructed the drivers to drive faster along the course but edited that out of the video. The few mistakes the drivers made was of course highlighted.

I'm also not interested in arguing or anyone's opinion for that matter.

I'm only interested in experience and facts. It's next to impossible to generalize while speaking factually on a huge demographic like cannabis users.

We'd require double blind randomized trials with a large sample groups.

I never defended the study’s reliability or validity. I simply stated that according to the webpage, the effect is not likely caused by an increase in population size, as you implied.

I do not advocate driving impaired.
But when I have the choice of a drunk driver or a cannabis high driver. I'll either go by foot or chose the cannabis driver.

I would prefer a stoned driver over a drunk one, too, but I’d opt out of being driven at all, if I couldn’t get a sober driver.

Laws shouldn’t be based on a choice between two bad things when you can prevent both.

I believe that science...rather than what we want to believe...says this is not so.

Cannabis effects reaction times and coordination.

I'm not getting an argument over this as people tend to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

Nobody wants to admit to themselves that they’ve been engaging in risky and negligent behavior. It feels bad.

Even when things are scientifically proven repeatedly, people will make up excuses to make themselves feel better. That’s why we hear excuses like “some people smoke a pack a day and drink a bottle of wine a day and live to 100!”

 

[Grifo]

I drive much more cautious when im high but its not like im getting behind the wheel super baked. Been consuming daily regularly for many years. Can everyone do it? No. Do i ever get so high that i cant drive? Yes and i dont, but even then after like 30 to 45 mins im good to go.

 

[Mr. Gweilo 420]

I drive high every day but would prefer others didn't.

 

[habitat-fc]

I believe that if you need to drive you should NOT be getting high, tolerance or no tolerance. I never drive whilst high, you wouldn't be driving if you didn't own a car so if you are stoned you may as well pretend you don't own a car

 

[Cannabiker]

Remember Ross Rebagliati? Of course you do--this is a stoner forum. I think the rest of the world has forgotten that the first Olympic gold medalist in snowboarding was baked.

When the tests first came out, he was disqualified. However, his gold medal was reinstated because weed wasn't on the list of banned substances. Since then, the World Anti-Doping Agency has added THC to the list of banned performance enhancing substances. As for Ross himself, he's gone on to great success in the medical market, promoting weed's benefits including athletic performance.

I can attest to that. Mountain biking is my main recreational passion, and I also skate a bit. When I'm doing something that requires intense temporal and spatial awareness--timing and balance--I find that weed helps me relax and focus. What would be a scary rush turns into flow.

I understand impairment. After a couple of beers I wouldn't drop into a half-pipe. Okay, maybe I would--beer makes you stupid like that. But I'd figure out something was wrong quickly.

On the other hand, I always hit the vape before a skate session or at the top of a mountain bike climb (the mix of endorphins, THC, and adrenaline is exquisite). If I can point my bike down the side of a mountain and pin it through trees fractions of an inch off the ends of my bars, I'm confident I can safely pilot my 25-year-old Volvo back from the trailhead.

@SonSzu: Thanks for the classic clip. Addy for queen.

 

[Tranquility]

1. Who are you going to crash into on the mountain bike and how badly will they be hurt if you do?

2. When you're riding the bike, are you paying attention?

For #1, remember there is a difference between when YOU risk YOUR ass and when YOU risk MY ass. And, physics. There is more mass in a car than in a bike. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/calcpad/momentum

For #2, the times I've mountain biked, it is a generally high-intensity event for a fairly short time. You pay attention like a fighter pilot to what is coming and then you rest and take the chairlift or slowly pedal to get some height again. There is some easy riding where you look at the scenery too. But, there are not a lot of complexities around you when you're just rolling. You can't choose attention moments in the same way while driving.

I can play pool OK. IF I have one or two beers in me. Less and I'm too stiff to stroke the ball well, more and I get sloppy. One or two. However, being able to play pool better is not the same as being a better driver. They are different skill sets and different conditions.

 

[Cannabiker]

1. Who are you going to crash into on the mountain bike and how badly will they be hurt if you do?

2. When you're riding the bike, are you paying attention?

For #1, remember there is a difference between when YOU risk YOUR ass and when YOU risk MY ass. And, physics. There is more mass in a car than in a bike. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/calcpad/momentum

For #2, the times I've mountain biked, it is a generally high-intensity event for a fairly short time. You pay attention like a fighter pilot to what is coming and then you rest and take the chairlift or slowly pedal to get some height again. There is some easy riding where you look at the scenery too. But, there are not a lot of complexities around you when you're just rolling. You can't choose attention moments in the same way while driving.

I can play pool OK. IF I have one or two beers in me. Less and I'm too stiff to stroke the ball well, more and I get sloppy. One or two. However, being able to play pool better is not the same as being a better driver. They are different skill sets and different conditions.

1. Was that a trick question? I'm not going to crash into anyone--I'm not impaired. And I hope you'll forgive me if I skip the physics primer--I know that cars are heavier than bikes. My point had nothing to do with the degree of consequence between one and the other.

2. Yes, I'm paying attention. I don't want to crash into anyone, remember? Obviously the variables you need to account for on a mountain bike are different than in a car, but they're no less complex.

For me the bottom line is I do everything on weed, and I'm not bumbling my way through life. I've been saturated for so long that this is my default setting. It just doesn't interfere with my ability to perform, whatever the task.

 

[Tranquility]

For me the bottom line is I do everything on weed, and I'm not bumbling my way through life. I've been saturated for so long that this is my default setting. It just doesn't interfere with my ability to perform, whatever the task.

I find it astonishing some people who use "weed" claim it has no effect on them. Many of us use it BECAUSE of the effects.

 

[Cannabiker]

I find it astonishing some people who use "weed" claim it has no effect on them. Many of us use it BECAUSE of the effects.

I didn't say it has no effect on me. In my first post in this thread I wrote: "I find that weed helps me relax and focus."

Rather, I said that it doesn't interfere with my ability to drive. It doesn't shorten my reaction time or cause undue distraction.

Heavy users--and I'm solidly in that category--don't experience the debilitating effects casual or neophyte (or newbie) users do. If I take a tolerance break, I can get blazed enough that I wouldn't be comfortable driving. I can understand how someone who's only felt that side of weed (no quotation marks necessary, unless you're just not comfortable with the word for some reason) would be alarmed at the idea of driving under its influence.

I prefer to enjoy cannabis this way. If I moderate my use, I go from too straight (an odd combination of agitated and bored) to too baked. Using it regularly, it becomes more like enjoying a cup of tea--a relaxing break that makes the rest of the day look more appealing.

As Snoop Dogg said, weed "makes me feel the way I need to feel."

 

[Tranquility]

So, you admit weed affects you in many ways. It's just that, in your opinion, none of them are bad for driving. Right?

Do you know what the main "bad" from alcohol is in regards to driving? Do you think most who drink and drive know if they are impaired in that area or not? What are the negatives to cannabis use you find after a tolerance break and getting blazed enough to feel comfortable enough to drive? In other words, in your opinion, under certain conditions, what possible problem could there be to driving after using?

 

[Cannabiker]

So, you admit weed affects you in many ways. It's just that, in your opinion, none of them are bad for driving. Right?

Do you know what the main "bad" from alcohol is in regards to driving? Do you think most who drink and drive know if they are impaired in that area or not? What are the negatives to cannabis use you find after a tolerance break and getting blazed enough to feel comfortable enough to drive? In other words, in your opinion, under certain conditions, what possible problem could there be to driving after using?

That is correct; I do not believe the effects of cannabis impair my ability to drive.

And sure, I understand the effects of alcohol. Most insidiously, the first thing affected by booze is judgement. You may not be physically impaired, but you drive with an unearned sense of confidence, leading to risky behavior. It's been well-documented that THC has a near-opposite effect--even if you're not physically impaired, you'll feel anxious about driving, leading to excess caution (not the worst driving attitude).

If I were to take a tolerance break, I would experience that feeling. The main thing I'd fear about driving wouldn't be physical, such as reaction time, it would be distraction. When really baked, I tend to disassociate; that is, I ignore the world around me in favor of the party in my head. That's not a state of mind conducive to safe vehicle operation, so I wouldn't do it.

Thankfully, weed doesn't have alcohol's ability to impair judgement. If I were to get too high to drive (and that's not likely--I don't care for tolerance breaks), I wouldn't.

It might also be worth noting that I drive rarely--the vast majority of my trips are made by bicycle.

 

[Tranquility]

That is correct; I do not believe the effects of cannabis impair my ability to drive.

And sure, I understand the effects of alcohol. Most insidiously, the first thing affected by booze is judgement. You may not be physically impaired, but you drive with an unearned sense of confidence, leading to risky behavior. It's been well-documented that THC has a near-opposite effect--even if you're not physically impaired, you'll feel anxious about driving, leading to excess caution (not the worst driving attitude).

If I were to take a tolerance break, I would experience that feeling. The main thing I'd fear about driving wouldn't be physical, such as reaction time, it would be distraction. When really baked, I tend to disassociate; that is, I ignore the world around me in favor of the party in my head. That's not a state of mind conducive to safe vehicle operation, so I wouldn't do it.

Thankfully, weed doesn't have alcohol's ability to impair judgement. If I were to get too high to drive (and that's not likely--I don't care for tolerance breaks), I wouldn't.

It might also be worth noting that I drive rarely--the vast majority of my trips are made by bicycle.

The thing the cops look for on a suspected drunk driver (After the physical signs. AKA "Bloodshot and watery eyes and a moderate smell of alcohol from his breath and person".) is what is called divided attention impairment. It is a subtle thing that people just don't think of as an effect and, yet, is key to looking at all the things that need to be done when driving.

How many people drinking assess if they can divide their attention appropriately?

Most think they're drunk when they lose coordination and balance. That is not the level of DUI that's just drunk. It might be so drunk you can't care for yourself and others and the police can take you into custody if you are driving or not. Disassociation is like that. It's pretty much out there from where the harm starts. If you use that as the sole guidepost as to if you should drive, I wish you ill for your selfishness.

 

[Cannabiker]

"I wish you ill for your selfishness."

Well, then, I wish you ill for your dickishness.

Good day, sir.

 

[ataxian]

"I wish you ill for your selfishness."

Well, then, I wish you ill for your dickishness.

Good day, sir.

Driving after 6 shots of 12 year old scotch. (PARIS 2 VERSAILLES) nearly crashed?
Driving after 2 SESSIONS VAPING. (COSTA MESA to HUNTINGTON BEACH) perfect?

Why is CANNABIS ILLEGAL in some parts?
R law makers lame?

 

[Tranquility]

"I wish you ill for your selfishness."

Well, then, I wish you ill for your dickishness.

Good day, sir.

You may interpret what I wrote as you will. But, the sentence *I* wrote in regards to you saying you wouldn't drive if you felt disassociated was:
"If you use that as the sole guidepost as to if you should drive, I wish you ill for your selfishness."

 

[ClearBlueLou]

There are laws against driving while drunk, they are not all good laws, but the reason for them is good: to actively discourage people from driving while drunk. Alcohol is involved in a vast number of accidents on the world’s roads, and a vast number of consequent injuries and fatalities. The human carnage is horrific.

It makes sense to say “if we’re going to legalize weed then we have to learn more about weed and driving impairment”. It does NOT make sense to insist that Weed affects reflexes and judgment *while driving* the same way shots do. We know that weed intoxication IS NOT “like” alcohol intoxication, and we’ve got the body-count to prove it, so hopefully we can look forward to some meaningful research down the road....

When we know what laws we need and don’t have, we can pass the laws we need. Until then, let’s not slingshot the crap of the past into the future before we get there. “Sufficient unto the day are the evils therein”

 

[looney2nz]

"I wish you ill for your selfishness."

Well, then, I wish you ill for your dickishness.

Good day, sir.

"I wish you ill for your selfishness."

Well, then, I wish you ill for your dickishness.

Good day, sir.

@Stu @pakalolo I don't see you online, so I hope you'll forgive me...

@Cannabiker Moderators frown on this kind of stuff.
We try to behave VERY civilly here, and it's paid off in spades.
You won't find a nicer more helpful group (I haven't), ask questions, read more,
but 15 posts in, please don't start off this way, you haven't even scratched the surface.
Take a breath, try again.
@OldNewbie has every right to their opinion and honestly they stated it fairly elegantly, was that tactless response really necessary?
There are LOTS of folks here who don't like the idea of driving while high for a multitude of reasons, for all you or I know @OldNewbie could have lost someone very close to them from an impaired driver.
Still wanna call him a dick? Is everyone who disagrees with your position a dick?

Please, everyone, take a beat, think about what you're writing, and I don't care how fucking high you are (and you all know what I'm talking about).

reminds me of everyone telling me what good drivers they were, they sure shut up after Bob Bondurant... it's vastly too easy to overestimate your skill level.

 

[Cannabiker]

@Stu @pakalolo I don't see you online, so I hope you'll forgive me...

@Cannabiker Moderators frown on this kind of stuff.
We try to behave VERY civilly here, and it's paid off in spades.
You won't find a nicer more helpful group (I haven't), ask questions, read more,
but 15 posts in, please don't start off this way, you haven't even scratched the surface.
Take a breath, try again.
@OldNewbie has every right to their opinion and honestly they stated it fairly elegantly, was that tactless response really necessary?
There are LOTS of folks here who don't like the idea of driving while high for a multitude of reasons, for all you or I know @OldNewbie could have lost someone very close to them from an impaired driver.
Still wanna call him a dick? Is everyone who disagrees with your position a dick?

Please, everyone, take a beat, think about what you're writing, and I don't care how fucking high you are (and you all know what I'm talking about).

reminds me of everyone telling me what good drivers they were, they sure shut up after Bob Bondurant... it's vastly too easy to overestimate your skill level.

Point taken; I appreciate the civility here. So I was a little surprised to have ill wished upon me in the middle of a civil discussion. It's fine to disagree, it's not okay to hope for misfortune to befall those who hold different views. I don't care how elegantly or passive-aggressively stated (I only wish this on you if...), that's far from civil.

I hope all of you will accept my apologies for my inappropriate response. I wasn't too high, I just wasn't high enough.

 

[looney2nz]

Point taken; I appreciate the civility here. So I was a little surprised to have ill wished upon me in the middle of a civil discussion. It's fine to disagree, it's not okay to hope for misfortune to befall those who hold different views. I don't care how elegantly or passive-aggressively stated (I only wish this on you if...), that's far from civil.

I hope all of you will accept my apologies for my inappropriate response. I wasn't too high, I just wasn't high enough.

lol, good on ya mate!

 

[Stu]

I see that the comments Cannabiker referred to are gone, and were gone when when I commented. I have edited out references to the side-chain. Sat svam asi

The comments are not gone as I just read them myself. Thank you @looney2nz for bringing this to our attention. Using the report feature is probably a better way to get our attention than tagging us in a thread, so going forward please use that feature.

It seems things have settled down now so I'll refrain from handing out any warning points, but please no more "wishing ill" for anyone, for any reason. Comments along those lines will bring warning points and/or thread bans going forward, so consider yourself warned.

Thank you all for your cooperation.