How Do You Deal With Stoned Drivers? (Delta: lawyers, house)

[painkills2]

Have there been increased accidents on the highway? Are children being knocked over by stoned drivers as if they were cones? Are pot smokers driving really slow through your neighborhood, making you nervous? Point to a real problem, instead of a perceived one, and maybe folks would pay attention.

[JMM64]

What's with all the arguing people?

Stoned driving is no worse or better than drunk driving, both are dangerous and their symptoms can kill.

Both actions are illegal so why are we arguing over which one is worse?

If you do either you are breaking the law and will get arrested!

The way you deal with either is to call the cops and report it!

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by freewest

Apparently many folks here have no problem with these folks driving. Like I say to people who believe in early parole for violent offenders, ok no problem. Let them live in your neighborhood. Let your daughter be their next victim.

You have no problem with these folks driving stoned? Ok, no problem. Let them drive in your neighborhood. Let your children be those cones.

If your kid is only as tall as a traffic cone, then you're the one to blame if the kid gets run over.

I have small children and they are never out of arms reach in parking lots - ever. Only an idiot would trust a small child to run loose in a parking lot.

BTW no one is saying they're OK with folks driving stoned. They're saying it's much less of a problem than Alcohol (I agree). It still can be a problem, but we need the correct studies and accurate data to make informed decision on legal levels of intoxication. That 5ng/ml number they came up with was pulled straight out of their a$$es. SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!!??

Please inform yourself on the subject. Here's an interesting write up from business insider that you should read. It might just be your kid who ends up on manslaughter chargers because he/she had 5ng/ml of THC in their system, but was not at fault and was in fact stone cold sober. Under current laws they will be going to jail even though they are 100% innocent.

Why DUI Limits For Pot Are Bad - Business Insider

[freewest]

Originally Posted by Colorado^

That 5ng/ml number they came up with was pulled straight out of their a$$es. SHOW ME THE SCIENCE!!??

Not pulled out of their a$$es. Objectively researched science. Here ya' go:
Cannabis Effects on Driving Skills
Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use
JAMA Network | JAMA | The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use in College Students
http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0...212-4/abstract
Driving under the influence of cannabis: a 10-year... [Addiction. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie&
Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: ... [BMJ. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI


And just in case any of you mice out there are thinking of driving while stoned:
Disposition of Cannabichromene, Cannabidiol, and

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Please inform yourself on the subject. Here's an interesting write up from business insider that you should read. It might just be your kid who ends up on manslaughter chargers because he/she had 5ng/ml of THC in their system, but was not at fault and was in fact stone cold sober. Under current laws they will be going to jail even though they are 100% innocent.

Yeah, Business Insider. That bastion of scientific research findings. If my kid splatters someone while driving stoned, then yeah, they should be up on manslaughter charges. 100% innocent? Stone cold sober? Read the above articles and abstracts.

And for the record, I am not arguing which is worse, stoned or drunk. I am arguing that stoned driving IS impaired driving. Period. Which is more prevalent is irrelevant. The science points to levels above 3 ng/mL in the blood.

My problem with the posts here is that ya'll want individual liberty without personal responsibility. This is philosophically irreconcilable.

[freewest]

Originally Posted by painkills2

Have there been increased accidents on the highway?

Yes.
Trends in Alcohol and Other Drugs Detected in Fatally Injured Drivers in the United States, 1999

Originally Posted by painkills2

Are children being knocked over by stoned drivers as if they were cones?

Yes.
While studies do not break down fatalities by age, it is not unreasonable to speculate that some of these deaths were children.

Originally Posted by painkills2

Are pot smokers driving really slow through your neighborhood, making you nervous?

Yes.
They are spacing out and not paying attention.

Originally Posted by painkills2

Point to a real problem, instead of a perceived one, and maybe folks would pay attention.

Pay attention to this - The people counted in the above article are not perceived dead. They are dead for real.

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by freewest

Not pulled out of their a$$es. Objectively researched science. Here ya' go:
Cannabis Effects on Driving Skills
Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use
JAMA Network | JAMA | The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use in College Students
http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0...212-4/abstract
Driving under the influence of cannabis: a 10-year... [Addiction. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie&
Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: ... [BMJ. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI


And just in case any of you mice out there are thinking of driving while stoned:
Disposition of Cannabichromene, Cannabidiol, and

Thanks for wasting my time. I read through the first few of those links and THEY DO NOT CONTAIN ANY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. I didn't bother to read the rest, but please if they do contain an actual scientific study, then please just quote that here. All you did was stick up a bunch of useless links that don't actually contain any studies pertaining to how they arrived at the 5ng/ml limit.

Here all the proof I could see in the first link.

Experimental studies have repeatedly shown that THC impairs cognition, psychomotor function and actual driving performance in a dose related manner

Well, where are those studies? That's what I'm asking for. Saying "Experimental studies show" means nothing. Typical pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by freewest

Yeah, Business Insider. That bastion of scientific research findings.

I doesn't matter who publishes the info as long as it's sound. What exactly is in error?

Originally Posted by freewest

If my kid splatters someone while driving stoned, then yeah, they should be up on manslaughter charges. 100% innocent? Stone cold sober? Read the above articles and abstracts.

Clearly you're having trouble following what's going on here.

Who's talking about driving stoned? We're talking about the current limitations of testing that can't differentiate between someone who just lit up and some who was stoned three days ago. Do you not understand???!!! It's not like alcohol that only stays in your blood stream when your impaired. This isn't my opinion, but scientific fact (did you even read the link?).

Originally Posted by freewest

And for the record, I am not arguing which is worse, stoned or drunk. I am arguing that stoned driving IS impaired driving. Period. Which is more prevalent is irrelevant. The science points to levels above 3 ng/mL in the blood.

Of course stoned driving is impaired driving. But what ng/ml of THC in the blood means you're impaired? Once again, please show me the study that was used to determine 3 or 5 ng/ml limit? Because I don't believe there has ever been a through, comprehensive and unbiased study on the subject. Case in point, I believe they are only just coming up with a test that measures THC intoxication, rather that current THC blood content (which =/= intoxication (FACT)).

My problem with the posts here is that ya'll want individual liberty without personal responsibility. This is philosophically irreconcilable.

You're putting words into my mouth. I've said a million times on here, that I don't support driving while intoxicated or distracted. What I am saying is the 5ng/ml is a fictional figure. The real number could be more OR less, but we need true scientific study without an agenda.

[freewest]

Originally Posted by Colorado^

Thanks for wasting my time. I read through the first few of those links and THEY DO NOT CONTAIN ANY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. ....

Clearly you're having trouble following what's going on here.

Who's talking about driving stoned? We're talking about the current limitations of testing that can't differentiate between someone who just lit up and some who was stoned three days ago. Do you not understand???!!! It's not like alcohol that only stays in your blood stream when your impaired. This isn't my opinion, but scientific fact (did you even read the link?).

ROFL, yeah almost 30 years of working in biomedical research, I am truly clueless.

Your first quote is actually from the second link. You do understand that these are just abstracts? Summaries of the theoretical intent and findings of the underlying manuscripts. You have to read the manuscripts to see the methodology, results, and discussions. The data is there. I could have posted a hundred. Every one of these is a scientific research study (peer reviewed), mostly epidemiology, some skill testing (JAMA article). The first link is more of a review of existing literature. You have to read the references to see raw data (too many to post). I could not find a single manuscript that did not observe impaired cognitive skills above 3 ng/mL. Not one. So that means "stoned driving". Not complicated.

Testing can involve detection of both the active compound, and inactive metabolites. The metabolites can remain in the blood for weeks or sometimes months after use. The active compound breaks down fairly quickly based on pharmacokinetic studies. Tests can absolutely differentiate between them. Some tests can go so far as to indicate the time of ingestion by taking the ratio of active versus inactive and using a general metabolic rate equation.

A scientific study without an agenda can usually be found in most peer reviewed research, not some news rag. Even then, it takes a lot of independent studies, coming to the same or similar conclusions to reach a consensus. Such is the normal scientific process when separated from politics. Well, enough of this.

[bartonizer]

Look, I would never suggest driving impaired. After all, we are at the mercy of who we share the road with. But I don't think that calling for a more critical analysis of what constitutes impairment means that you're condoning behavior. And I don't care about how many years someone has worked in research if they cannot put things into perspective and view things in the context of the situation. Simply generalizing black/white on this type of issue is lazy. So cognitive impairment is evident at 3 mg? Great. But how does that stack up to acceptable limits for other substances?

We allow .08 as a limit of intoxication when determining who can operate a motor vehicle. Are they comparable? In the video from an earlier thread, a driving expert and a policeman didn't see a problem with people that consumed 5x and 7x the legal limit! Let that sink in. Compare that with alcohol and the participants would have been dead. Dead. It's easy to say that impaired = wrong. But in real life, it's more of a grey area, and it's not how we treat everything and everyone. For all we know, 3ng may be the same threat posed by a cup of coffee. And it may only be 10% as dangerous as driving tired distracted. But just saying it's wrong is simplistic and obnoxious, especially considering that for many people, the residual active metabolite can easily be above the legal limit, regardless of impairment.

We just made a substance legal for millions of residents- and tons of other tourists to visit and try. We owe it to everyone over 21 to work a little harder to determine what actually constitutes a dangerous level of impairment. Reasonable people deserve to have a better idea of when they're crossing the line.

In the end, they're both intoxicants, but the similarities end there - and it's important that we examine the differences. Would you say that my housecat and a Siberian Tiger pose the same threat to you? They're both felines, after all. Magnitude of intoxication and a relative comparisondoes matter in this case, and merits further investigation, hopefully sooner than later.

[Colorado^]

Originally Posted by freewest

ROFL, yeah almost 30 years of working in biomedical research, I am truly clueless.

In what capacity? Because it sure looks like you're making this up as you go along.

Originally Posted by freewest

Your first quote is actually from the second link. You do understand that these are just abstracts? Summaries of the theoretical intent and findings of the underlying manuscripts. You have to read the manuscripts to see the methodology, results, and discussions. The data is there.

The actual data & research isn't available unless I pay $36 to become a subscriber.

Originally Posted by freewest

I could not find a single manuscript that did not observe impaired cognitive skills above 3 ng/mL. Not one. So that means "stoned driving". Not complicated.

Not one?

From your second link:

The degree of performance impairment observed in experimental studies after doses up to 300 μg/kg THC were equivalent to the impairing effect of an alcohol dose producing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥0.05 g/dl, the legal limit for driving under the influence in most European countries.

Do you know that 300ug/kg is 283ng/ml. That's over 56 times the 5ng/ml limit.

Here's the math so we can all follow along.

1ug = 1,000ng so

300ug/kg = 300,000ng/kg

1,000g = 1kg so

300,000ng/kg = 300ng/g.

One ml of Blood weighs 1.06g so

300ng/g = 283ng/ml

[freewest]

LOL. Yeah, making this up as I go along. Here's some more I just made up:

300 ug/kg refers to kg of body weight, not the weight of blood . Subject weight is how doses are administered in order to normalize the dose amongst subjects of different sizes. And it cannot be extrapolated to volume of blood because samples for drug testing actually use serum (or plasma), not whole blood.

Originally Posted by bartonizer

...We owe it to everyone over 21 to work a little harder to determine what actually constitutes a dangerous level of impairment. Reasonable people deserve to have a better idea of when they're crossing the line...

How much harder do we have to work to determine a dangerous level of impairment? If several hundred, peer-reviewed, scientific studies are not enough to determine impairment, what is? They are unanimous in their conclusions that TCH alone causes impairment in the 3 - 5 ng/mL range. When combined with alcohol, there is a synergistic effect, such that lower levels of THC cause greater impairment. The problem here is that many people do not want to accept the simple fact that this has already been studied ad nauseam. Maybe when High Times magazine publishes 1000000 ng/mL, then suddenly everyone will all accept that number because that's really what everyone wants to hear.