The Futility and Illogic of DUI Pot Laws

[Farm Boy]

You're not going to stop people from communicating. So, the next question is how to get them to communicate in a more safe manner?

Totally correct. Same argument as "you aren't going to stop people from drinking." If one of the ways we get people to drink in a more safe manner is to charge them with 2nd degree murder when they kill somebody operating a motor vehicle intoxicated, or revoke their driver's license for doing so without causing harm then both of those measures seem not only applicable to talking on the phone while driving but also long past due.

Meh you might as well start pulling over people who haven't gotten enough sleep, people who are stressed out, people who are hungover, people who are fantasizing about sex/food etc...distraction can't be eliminated. Pull over people who look like they're being dicks on the road.

We do pull people over for driving too tired. It's ticketable. People who drive like dicks are often chargeable with reckless driving. Distraction can't be eliminated. True. We decided drunkeness can't be eliminated. What we can do, is punish and discourage behavior shown to be harmful by punishing the decision to engage in a particularly dangerous and selfish activity. Which talking on the phone while a steering wheel is in your care is indeed.

If you want to reevaluate the whole situation we could do that, but it kills the justification for punishing people who are driving intoxicated. Lock em all up or stop punishing the drunkards. Anything less is utter hypocrisy.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm fine erring on the side of caution. If the compromise for legal recreational cannabis is criminalizing driving while high, then I'm totally fine with that.

That was my position as well. The OP's hypothetical "what if it was shown that people who were stoned were not more impaired than someone with a BAC of 0.07?" is actually really interesting! What's my opinion? Well, I'm not entirely sure now.

This would actually justify criminalizing BACs of less than 0.08.

Ah, marijuana ... the red-headed stepchild of recreational substances ...

 

[Gucumatz]

As others have said - It does impair driving and while although less dangerous than other actions (say driving after drinking with a BAC > .08), it doesn't change the fact it is dangerous. There was a Swedish Study I believe that showed it takes a decent bit of Marijuana to truly have "real impairment", but its not outside of the realm for Marijuana users to reach that specific threshold.

THC stays in the body for a long time yes, but I still favor erring on the side of caution.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

While excess alcohol makes drivers throw caution to the wind, cannabis makes them extra cautious -neatly balancing out the lowered reaction time.

Well, not exactly since it doesn't help when others drive less cautious and the stoned driver needs to react to that.

Like alcohol there should be a legal limit. While I don't drive under the influence, I know I'd be perfectly fine after having smoked a small one which I made myself, which doesn't make it a temptation by the way. I also know I'd be an outright danger after having a couple of drags from some of the atomic bombs my mate constructs.

Do tests. Determine limits. Add a margin of caution. Check on drivers.

But I did hear that the stuff remains in the blood for days, so that's not a very good test. I'd lose my license first time they checked me for instance.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm pretty sure that adding pot smokers to the highways in greater numbers will not make the roads any safer.

Actually, you might be wrong on that point... One of the studies I came across was attributing lower fatality rates in states with legal (medicinal) pot to a corresponding reduction in alcohol consumption (watch the booze companies lobby against legal pot...again). I seriously doubt many people started smoking pot and stopped drinking beer, but y'all are invited to shoot holes in their theory.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/12/02/driving-stoned-safer-than-driving-drunk/

Well, you might think they are illogical, but THC is still a drug that alters ones awareness and response. Sure, its different than alcohol, but that doesnt mean we should'nt have laws about Marijuana use and operation of vehicles.

What would be the point of the law if pot impairment doesn't exceed the already legal impairment for booze? What law would you suggest?

I'm not a big fan of anyone driving in an altered mental state.

Do you drive? If so, I'm sure you've driven with an altered state of mind - kinda hard to avoid it.

Yeah, all those people hopped-up on coffee and SSRIs need to have their asses thrown in jail.

Did you know that Jains are supposed to walk everywhere they go? I was quite interested to learn this recently.

And I think there's a branch of them who practice ahimsa (non-violence), they literally sweep the path in front of them to avoid stepping on bugs and they wear cloth over the mouth so they dont swallow anything.

Driving under the influence of LSD is extremely stupid and should not be attempted by anyone. Having said that, driving on LSD when it's snowing has a really awesome Star Wars jump to hyperspace kind of effect.

We walked around Big Bear (SoCal) tripping under a full moon with plenty of snow, fortunately it wasn't falling at the time.

I respect you less as a person, due to your behaviour with drugs.

I agree, how could he risk being out on the road at 3 AM with all them drunk drivers?

The biggest danger to safety by far on the highways is due to so many people not remaining nearly alert enough while driving. Many people simply don't pay much attention at all when operating a car, and they frequently get distracted or fixated doing other activities.

yup

I'm fine erring on the side of caution. If the compromise for legal recreational cannabis is criminalizing driving while high, then I'm totally fine with that.

The side of caution is a BAC <.08, pot use is already on the side of caution... And your law would effectively place many sick people under house arrest.

The OP's hypothetical "what if it was shown that people who were stoned were not more impaired than someone with a BAC of 0.07?" is actually really interesting! What's my opinion? Well, I'm not entirely sure now.

I'd imagine it raises equal protection questions, punishing people for being a threat while greater threats are legal.

As others have said - It does impair driving and while although less dangerous than other actions (say driving after drinking with a BAC > .08), it doesn't change the fact it is dangerous. There was a Swedish Study I believe that showed it takes a decent bit of Marijuana to truly have "real impairment", but its not outside of the realm for Marijuana users to reach that specific threshold.

THC stays in the body for a long time yes, but I still favor erring on the side of caution.

Well, not exactly since it doesn't help when others drive less cautious and the stoned driver needs to react to that.

Much has been said about reaction time, etc... The problem is the studies show pot smokers leave more room when following another car. The authors noted the longer distance reduces the visual input triggering the brake and the need to react fast. That doesn't mean the pot smoker is reacting more slowly, it means they dont need to react as fast because they're driving more safely than the sober participants. Ironic, huh?

 

[Gucumatz]

Which explains why, without statistical anomaly, after 50,000 cases and easily the largest study on this argument says you are nearly twice as likely to get into a crash within 3 hours after smoking Marijuana. There are studies that show if you smoke a little that indeed the effect is nominal - but there IS a threshold where it becomes extremely dangerous

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...king-motorists-twice-as-likely-to-crash-cars/

 

[illram]

@ Berz: lots of people take medications that prevent them from driving, or at least make it questionable whether they should operate a motor vehicle.

I think that, like alcohol, there is a certain amount you can have and still safely drive, so if there was a level at which we could say that like there is with BAC then I'd be fine with that. But at this point we are so culturally behind that anything to get recreational cannabis legalized is fine with me, then we can deal with that later.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Which explains why, without statistical anomaly, after 50,000 cases and easily the largest study on this argument says you are nearly twice as likely to get into a crash within 3 hours after smoking Marijuana. There are studies that show if you smoke a little that indeed the effect is nominal - but there IS a threshold where it becomes extremely dangerous

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...king-motorists-twice-as-likely-to-crash-cars/

This study claims that if you have an excessive amount of THC in your blood that the rate of fatal accidents is higher, which is typically the only time that blood tests are performed. It also doesn't seem to discriminate based on culpability.

It also states the following:

Fewer case-control and cohort studies have looked at cannabis consumption and collision risk, and their results have been inconsistent.5 25 26 27 More than half of these studies have suggested that cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of traffic collision,21 23 28 and the remaining studies have found no association or a decreased risk of collision.29 30 31 32 33 Researchers have also used a variant of case-control designs, often known as culpability studies.34 Culpability studies include drivers involved in collisions, separated into those who were responsible for the collision and those who were not. The premise of these studies is that, if cannabis use increases collision risk, the drug should more likely be detected in drivers judged to be responsible for their collision. However, culpability analyses have also produced mixed results.35 36 37 38 39

Therefore, a lack of consensus exists on whether the risk of motor vehicle collisions is elevated or lowered when drivers have recently consumed cannabis. Furthermore, very few robust studies on this subject are generalisable to situations in the real world. An up to date systematic review is necessary to integrate the existing evidence on the role of cannabis use on collision risk, not only from a public policy and programme perspective, but also in view of the current gaps in scope and quality of literature and methodology.

 

[Goodfella]

Much has been said about reaction time, etc... The problem is the studies show pot smokers leave more room when following another car. The authors noted the longer distance reduces the visual input triggering the brake and the need to react fast. That doesn't mean the pot smoker is reacting more slowly, it means they dont need to react as fast because they're driving more safely than the sober participants. Ironic, huh?

By citing positive effects, aren't you actually encouraging people to smoke pot before driving.

Anyway,

http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2...-consumption-and-motor-vehicle-collision-risk

Drivers who consume cannabis within three hours of driving are nearly twice as likely to cause a vehicle collision as those who are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol claims a paper published today on bmj.com.

The paper's authors, from Dalhousie University, reviewed nine studies with a total sample of 49,411 people to determine whether the consumption of cannabis increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.

This is the first review to look at various observational studies concerned with the risk of vehicle collision after the consumption of cannabis. Previous studies have failed to separate the effects of alcohol and other substances from the use of cannabis, resulting in a lack of agreement.

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit substance globally and recent statistics have shown a significant increase in use across the world. Rates of driving under influence have also increased. A roadside survey carried out in Scotland in 2007 showed that out of 537 drivers tested, 15% aged 17-39 admitted to having consumed cannabis within 12 hours of driving.

All motor vehicle collisions involved in the study took place on a public road and involved one or more moving vehicles such as cars, vans, sports utility vehicles, trucks, buses and motorcycles. Results were taken through blood samples or direct self-report.

Results show that if cannabis is consumed before driving a motor vehicle, the risk of collision is nearly doubled. Previous results have also found that there is also a substantially higher chance of collision if the driver is aged 35 or younger.

In conclusion, the authors suggest that the consumption of cannabis impairs motor tasks important to safe driving, increasing the chance of collisions and that future reviews should assess less severe collisions from a general driving population.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I just cited paragraphs from the actual paper referred to in that article that states just the opposite. I did so after a CBS paraphrase of the same article you just posted was posted by Gucumatz above.

You really can't trust interpretations of scientific studies by the press, even when that interpretation is done by the publishers of the paper.

 

[Goodfella]

I just cited paragraphs from the actual paper referred to in that article that states just the opposite. I did so after a CBS paraphrase of the same article you just posted was posted by Gucumatz above.

You really can't trust interpretations of scientific studies by the press, even when that interpretation is done by the publishers of the paper.

Yeah, we're using the same source. What I cited is in the actual paper as well.
From your link:

Our primary analysis looked at the risk of a motor vehicle collision while under the influence of cannabis and included all nine studies (relating to 49&#8201;411 participants). The pooled risk of a motor vehicle collision while driving under the influence of cannabis was almost twice the risk while driving unimpaired (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I2=81%).

 

[civver_764]

I respect you less as a person, due to your behaviour with drugs.

That's fine. I'm not a perfect person.

 

[Gucumatz]

No one is. I respect you still equally the same even though I am against Marijuana use in general, who are we to throw the first stone ? You contributed to the discussion and for that I thank you

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Very convincing....

One of those was a burning bush. Better?

 

[woody60707]

Well what is it people, does it double your risk of collision or not?

Also can we see some studies on the use of drink while on crack or LSD?

 

[Berzerker]

@ Berz: lots of people take medications that prevent them from driving, or at least make it questionable whether they should operate a motor vehicle.

I think that, like alcohol, there is a certain amount you can have and still safely drive, so if there was a level at which we could say that like there is with BAC then I'd be fine with that. But at this point we are so culturally behind that anything to get recreational cannabis legalized is fine with me, then we can deal with that later.

Sounds reasonable

Which explains why, without statistical anomaly, after 50,000 cases and easily the largest study on this argument says you are nearly twice as likely to get into a crash within 3 hours after smoking Marijuana. There are studies that show if you smoke a little that indeed the effect is nominal - but there IS a threshold where it becomes extremely dangerous

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...king-motorists-twice-as-likely-to-crash-cars/

By citing positive effects, aren't you actually encouraging people to smoke pot before driving.

Anyway

What are you doing by ignoring those effects? One of the accusations thrown at pot users to justify jailing "all" of them is their slow reaction time when driving, the authors of the article I cited offered an explanation and I repeated it.

Anyway

Y'all have links claiming pot makes a motorist 1.75x more likely to have an accident. What do you think the numbers will be for booze?

Research has documented that the risk of a motor vehicle crash increases as BAC increases (3,4,8) and that the more demanding the driving task, the greater the impairment caused by low doses of alcohol (3). Compared with drivers who have not consumed alcohol, the risk of a single-vehicle fatal crash for drivers with BAC's between 0.02 and 0.04 percent is estimated to be 1.4 times higher; for those with BAC's between 0.05 and 0.09 percent, 11.1 times higher; for drivers with BAC's between 0.10 and 0.14 percent, 48 times higher; and for those with BAC's at or above 0.15 percent, the risk is estimated to be 380 times higher (8).

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa31.htm

Although the research found that marijuana smokers were twice as likely to be involved in collisions, their study did confirm that alcohol consumption is still the No. 1 cause of vehicular crashes with drivers with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 being 2.69 times more likely to be involved in a serious crash than those not under the influence.

http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2012/02/15/smoking-weed-doubles-car-crash-risk.htm

1.75 < 2.69 < ~5-8

Marijuana impairs drivers less than the legal limit for booze, hence the point of this thread.

----------------------------------

Hey Gucumatz, the Popol Vuh quote sounds like Mesopotamian myths about people being created to labor for their gods. According to Genesis, "there was no Adam to till the ground". Imagine that

 

[Goodfella]

Y'all have links claiming pot makes a motorist 1.75x more likely to have an accident. What do you think the numbers will be for booze?



http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa31.htm



http://alcoholism.about.com/b/2012/02/15/smoking-weed-doubles-car-crash-risk.htm

1.75 < 2.69 < ~5-8

Marijuana impairs drivers less than the legal limit for booze, hence the point of this thread.

But you did say you want there to be no legal limit:

None, they're illogical given that a blood-alcohol level of .08 is legal and pot smokers apparently dont reach that level of impairment.

And as MobBoss already pointed out, just because there is less impairment doesn't mean there is no impairment. Obviously there should be some sort of law in place to handle intoxicated drivers and this includes those that are intoxicated from cannabis consumption.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yeah, we're using the same source. What I cited is in the actual paper as well.
From your link:

What was in your first post was a press release which even states that in the URL you posted:

http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/20...collision-risk

It completely misinterpreted what the paper said, just as you just did by quote mining a single paragraph completely out of context with the rest of what was stated.

If you read the article you will see that this result was weighted heavily in consideration of data where the blood of the individual involved was taken. That it really represents the cases where the individuals were "acutely" stoned as determined by those tests, e.g. they had an extremely high amount of THC in their blood. Furthermore, it doesn't even try to determine if the person was actually culpable for the accident.

The paper also makes it quite clear that all of the previous work in this area is highly inconclusive. That some reports do claim that the accident rate is higher, but others claim it is about the same and even some claim it is less.

Here are the conclusions:

What is already known on this topic

Little consensus exists in the scientific literature on how driving under the influence of cannabis affects the risk of a motor vehicle collision in naturalistic settings

What this study adds

Acute cannabis consumption nearly doubles the risk of a collision resulting in serious injury or death; this increase was most evident for studies of high quality, case-control studies, and studies of fatal collisions

The influence of cannabis use on the risk of minor collisions remains unclear

These data could help inform policy and interventions tackling road safety and raise public awareness of the collision risks when driving under the influence of cannabis

 

[Berzerker]

But you did say you want there to be no legal limit:

And as MobBoss already pointed out, just because there is less impairment doesn't mean there is no impairment. Obviously there should be some sort of law in place to handle intoxicated drivers and this includes those that are intoxicated from cannabis consumption.

And I told Mobby the law doesn't require the absence of impairment, if it did we'd all be in violation. We already have a legal limit for booze, its a BAC of .08 - and you have linked a study showing pot impairs drivers less than the legal limit of impairment for booze, so if pot smokers dont reach the existing legal level of impairment there's no need for additional laws.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is an excellent point, even when you only use extreme levels of THC in the blood and don't factor in culpability.