“Why the fuck would you be talking about something you know nothing about?”
That’s literally all I’m going to keep replying to your sorry ass.
2 Likes
You are using empirical data to support your anecdotes when the data does not actually support you. That’s the issue here.
The 1998 paper itself stays in its lane and does not suggest that all cannabis use leads to driving impairment. YOU nitpicked the reaction time data as if that proves your point. Read their conclusions rather than creating your own.
1 Like
Why don’t you tag someone with an actual degree, and they can explain how to interpret the tables and other figures.
1 Like
I don’t need it explained. Apparently you require some explanation to understand what you’re being told in regards to your highly touted study…
1 Like
Are you a recent graduate or something?
5 Likes
I’m not going to continue to rebut your uninformed opinion until you actually read the paper that I kindly summarized for you. If you can’t understand the tables that I referenced, I would then suggest you ask for help. from the 1998 paper:
0.00% d9 = 590 +/- 28ms brake latency
1.77% d9 = 628 +/- 19ms (roughly 6% increase)
3.95% d9 = 644 +/- 18ms (roughly 9% increase)
since I don’t have access to the data set, we can’t plug it into R to provide a more detailed model, but at 60mph that’s equal to at least 15 feet of extra braking distance, enough to plow straight through whatever it is you’d be safely stopping in front of without marijuana influence. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that this is with 4% THC content, which is at most 1/3 of most commercial products nowadays. Please read the papers before responding.
I’ve got two race tracks available locally where we can put this to a test. Who wants to sponsor the stoner 500?
6 Likes
i got $5 on it
2 Likes
Many investigators have suggested that the reason why marijuana does not result in an increased crash rate in laboratory tests despite demonstrable neurophysiologic impairments is that, unlike drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to underestimate their degree of impairment, marijuana users tend to overestimate their impairment, and consequently employ compensatory strategies. Cannabis users perceive their driving under the influence as impaired and more cautious,40 and given a dose of 7 mg THC (about a third of a joint), drivers rated themselves as impaired even though their driving performance was not; in contrast, at a BAC 0.04% (slightly less than two “standard drinks” of a can of beer or small 5 oz. glass of wine; half the legal limit in most US states), driving performance was impaired even though drivers rated themselves as unimpaired.41 Binge drinkers are particularly likely to rate themselves as unimpaired, possibly because they tend to become less sedated by high doses of alcohol.42
It appears that cannabis use may impair some driving skills (automatic functions such as tracking) at smoked doses as low as 6.25 mg (a third of a joint), but different skills (complex functions that require conscious control) are not impaired until higher doses, and cannabis users tend to compensate effectively for their deficits by driving more carefully.
Some reviewers have concluded that there is no evidence that cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for crashes, and may actually reduce risk.66 Drummer’s review of blood samples of traffic fatalities in Australia found that drivers testing positive for marijuana were actually less likely to have been judged responsible for the accident.67 Several other studies have found no increase in crash risk with cannabis.68–70
Chronic marijuana smokers are less impaired by both alcohol and marijuana than would be expected, however.
How about this study?
Interestingly, three reports indicate that chronic marijuana smokers are less susceptible to impairment from alcohol on some measures compared with nonsmokers or infrequent smokers. As far back as 1970, Reese Jones noticed that alcohol’s effects were diminished in heavy cannabis smokers.61 A subsequent study showed that regular cannabis smokers demonstrate less of a decrement in peripheral signal detection under the influence of alcohol than do infrequent users,62 and a later study still found that regular cannabis users given alcohol alone showed less of a decrement in tracking accuracy and dizziness ratings than infrequent users given the same alcohol dose.63 The reason for this is unclear, but is hypothesized to result from either pharmacological or behavioral cross-tolerance between marijuana and alcohol.
Looks like chronic weed smoking can help with your drunk driving too!
3 Likes
Again, you’re basing your data on information with low statistical relevance to the larger population and intentionally not relevant for daily users. These are impaired drivers in this study in 1998. The 2007 study can walk you through what types of data are available.
Here is an anecdote for you. Pulled from the currently active California Highway Patrol website 2022.
4 Likes
Again, “Why the fuck would you be talking about something you know nothing about?”
Please smoke some weed before trying to have any say on this subject.
“Why the fuck would you be talking about something you know nothing about?”
This is frustrating
Wheelbase is a little short. Not my build.
@TXisbest looks like a mall-wart special.
below is one of mine, and one that was abandoned by a tenant.
mine actually had 21 speeds if you were good/dumb enough to change the front hand
the male on males are not for the feint of heart…
2 Likes
You realize all the people you’re talking shit to are goddamn geniuses?
Ok now you do
Many people here are educated, but not only that, they have open minds, and…wait for it…read peer reviewed studies a lot.
Hope you change your attitude
Or not I don’t give a fuck
I bet all of those people had sugar in their system and some may even have had caffeine, correlation =/= causation
You mean the same government and medical monopoly
who in the past commissioned/funded the tests that found cannabis ( also LSD, MDMA, psilocybes but that’s another rant) to have zero medical use and have a high potential of abuse?
Their study may or may not be accurate but I’m not going to just blindly accept what they say as fact when looking at the track record. Maybe I’m just a paranoid
How is this study discerning someone that is actively high from someone who has a large tolerance as it’s been shown THc levels in biofluid is not a reliable method for discerning impairment.
Do they even take into account that peak effects can be felt when the concentration in biofluid is not at its peak?
Are they testing for different routes of administration? Vaporization and ingestion can give two very different effects with a difference in time of peak effect and for how long
1 Like
One more thing
If I’m smoking weed, in the car, and somebody hits MY vehicle, I’ll be at fault automatically, pretty much
So in this situation, saying someone is culpable does not mean they were at fault, but that they had pot smoke or smell or had smoked or whatever, so they are automatically at fault
1 Like