Marijuana Not a Factor in Driving Accidents

University of Toronto ^ | March 29, 1999 | Professor Alison Smiley

[davesdude]

when you drive impaired, no matter from what....you can KILL MANY people.....


and what's your point against me?? this is what i am trying to prove, that even with non government sponsored studies that shows something against popular belief, people freak out and starts yapping without any background! wihtout considering their opponent's scientific proof!

[davesdude]

i have answered you by the m,ail system! Thanks!

[davesdude]

here is a good link for ya!

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

[davesdude]

http://www.ukcia.org/research/ADFDrugsandDriving.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14756710&dopt=Abstract

[davesdude]

"people like you are what is making this country into one gigantic sinking mound of dirt.....small character, small amount of societal responsibility, and so little respect for anyone else because its ALL ABOUT YOU isn't it...your needs, your desires....."

it's in fact all about you nad please read til the end before replying...

it is in fact people who refuses to see life as it is that makes the country a big gigantic whatever you want...drug use will always be okay??

the problem is that you and many others are still living in their fantasy life taught by fairytale stories...the facts are, the profit made with drugs is well over the budjet of what the united states and the whole world has...most of the drugs sold are basically from a plant or something from nature, so drugs will always be available (i hope you understand that trying to get rid of nature's element is totally foolish...) and demand will always be, please don't argue against this it's a waste of time...

now because of your stupid ideological fairy tales your government started banning drugs a while ago, making research on the substance almost illegal in the old days...because of that, we don't have reliable ways of catching people while under the influence of a drug...

another thing your precious childs are subject to is getting dope at school, but i'll let you tell me what is the cause of that...

[davesdude]

so let's make it more simple... is driving under the influence of Pot is less harmful than driving under the influence of alchool?? true or false

let's try this now!

[Paulus]

Once I was driving "high", I thought I was going a million miles an hour. All my buddies kept screaming slow down, your going to fast!!! (you know how panicy people can get when they are noiding-out) This went on for what I thought was miles (actually about 300 feet). Finally, the idea hit me to look at my speedometer.... I was going a grand total 25 mph.

It took us a really long time to get where we was going fast!

[Smokin' Joe]

First, where is it saying 10 to 20mph less than the traffic??? What is expressed in her statement is more like slowind down from the usual driving speed average you are doing...please do not assume people are all driving within the legal speed...

Try doing the speed limit on any major urban area access corridor highway and you will get either run over, or pulled over for obstructing traffic.

Everyone is doing 10-15 mph over the limit, and there is safety in numbers. As long as traffic is moving smoothly, few police will interfere.

If you are stoned, and only a little paranoid and want to avoid getting pulled over...you do the speed limit, which makes you slower than the rest of traffic. I am reasonably sure the study results did not find that people slowed down from 90 to only drive 70...

Don't get me wrong, impaired driving is impaired driving..You never know what can happen, but i just wonder with those studies why people will still defend with their heart and soul, alcool and bash all their heart and soul against pot, without real justification...

I work on oil rigs, where, much like the worst case scanario on the highway, a second of inattention can get you maimed or killed. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe your wife will get a phone call late at night.

The point being, I am not defending either means of impairment when it comes to driving, nor am I about to.

One of the reasons there are much better statistics on the effect of alcohol on driving is that it is legal, and has been studied. Of course, there have been a few million dead members of the study group along the way, not to mention collateral damage. If someone was under the influence of marijuana and had had a beer, they would opt for the DUI rather than face posession charges, too.

I ask you, do you want to unleash another intoxicant to study the effects, knowing you will be one of the 'lab rats' who might end up being a statistic. Feel free to substitute your wife, daughter, son, friends, or other loved ones for yourself. Do we really want to go there?

There is a point where the consumption of alcohol, as I described earlier can be stopped, where generally, the human organism is deemed to function well enough to operate a motor vehicle. SOme people can stop there and do, others do not.

Hand some people a cell phone and that number drops to zero.

You make the claim that the grower would know how potent the pot is, but different parts of the plant contain different concentrations of resin, different plants contain different concentrations, and much depends on the maturity of the plant.

I know this, believe it or not, from growing tobacco--same thing with tobacco plants.

So even the grower who is pinching his plants is not going to be able to anticipate necessarily the potencey of the adult plant, nor the potency of different parts of the plant--and that may vary from plant to plant as well.

Iirc, High Times did a study years ago that found that pot smokers smoke the same amount, regardless of how potent the pot.

And finally, FWIW, I do not smoke pot, nor drink, but have known many over the years who did one or the other or both. I drive.

[pageonetoo]

Once I was driving "high", I thought I was going a million miles an hour....

That is something I never experienced. I know that other people have different experiences.

I was driving cross country, flowing with traffic, when I crossed the OK line, from IN. I was in the right lane, behind two cars. As I approached a slight rise (I couldn't see over it), the lead car slowed from the 70 mph were were legally driving. I started left, but as I topped the rise, saw a trooper preparing to pull out. I whipped it back in behind the lead car, with another following me.

The cop came screaming out, and cut into in behind me, and hit his lights to pull me. I had been toking shortly before, so I had rolled down the windows, hopefully clearing the air. OK is not friendly to anybody, much less pot smokers.

I talked with him, and asked why he decided to pull me. He told me he thought I had been a little wreckless, when I pulled back into my lane. I explained that I was trying to give him an opportunity to pull out, and assured him that I had indeed been driving legally. I pointed to my GPS, and told him I had a complete record of my speed. After checking my license, he told me to be careful and I headed west again. That was the last time I drove stoned!

I know that I had been driving safely, and had had no lane drifts, nor any other driving errors. I just felt I did not need to take the chance! I have never been in jail, and don't wannabe!!!

I seldom smoke it anymore. I have friends that do it regularly. I can hit one any time I wish. Most are people who lead the community, and most of them own their own businesses. They contribute far more than they get back. Yet, they are considered second class citizens by people like the critics herein, because they smoke for their buzz, rather than imbibe!

The law is based on bad perceptions, and even outright lies. The FReeper's that criticize so highly have no more information except the propaganda against it. They are pretty good at quoting the law, but don't have any idea of the reality! I think the term "sheeple" fits quite well!

[Allegra]

Marijuana Not a Factor in Driving Accidents

No, it just dupes you into thinking you're going 80 mph when you're really only going 22 mph (with the car stereo CRANKED...)

I heard that somewhere once.

[Paulus]

I am a rowdy friend that settled down. Not that it was'nt fun. I still could. I am just at a point where losing all the things I have accumulated is not as much fun as what could happen while getting caught driving high. I agree about the law and how the propaganda machine throwing out bad perceptions.

Where I live in Switzerland, there is a more relaxed approach towards burnin'. People are not looked down upon and thought of being on step away from being a junki for doing it and they are not a hero if they dont.

[Flyer]

it just dupes you into thinking you're going 80 mph when you're really only going 22 mph

I was a passenger with a guy coming back back from Galveston in the wee hours (a long, LONG time ago) and we were stopped on I-45. . . for going too slow.

(No ticket, no search, no sobriety tests. I don't know how many ways I can say lucky)

[pageonetoo]

Too many of our laws are based on ignorance, and agenda. In the case of pot, I am convinced that the biggest opponent is the legal alcohol industry. Having had 58 years of differing experiences, I can attest that marijuana is much less of a threat to society, than alcohol.

Our country has more and more laws placed on our shoulders, each year. Most are not designed to help "society", but instead address some facet which will need to be litigated. After all, most of our lawmakers are lawyers, and they make a pretty good hourly rate.

I posted the pic of a "seat belt traffic stop" to demonstrate the sheeple aspect. The law does possibly protect life, but it surely makes for good revenues for the localities. IMO, it was instigated by the insurance companies, and then the revenue aspect became demonstrated to the states. It is just another "liberty" that is washed down the drain.

I know little of Swiss law, but there are plenty of places where marijuana is legal, or quasi-legal, and they surely don't have any big problems, resulting from it. It's all about perceptions of "good".

Just look at our EPA for an example of "government gone crazy"! It's a lawyers dream!!!

[davesdude]

"If you are stoned, and only a little paranoid and want to avoid getting pulled over...you do the speed limit,"
this doesn't make any sens as per what you are saying here..."Everyone is doing 10-15 mph over the limit, and there is safety in numbers. As long as traffic is moving smoothly, few police will interfere" so if a stoner doesn't want to get pulled over, he won't drive at a speed where he'll get pull over! if the traffic is going per say at 75 mph, he won't slow down to get horn or pulled over, if this really happen...i guess things are much different up here!! i was driving back and forth the 401 from toronto to montreal each week-end, smoking to get the time go faster, and i was doing 120 km/h when there was nobody and made sure i followed someone at the same speed not to get pulled over...but that's personnal experience only...


"The point being, I am not defending either means of impairment when it comes to driving, nor am I about to. " And this is what i like about your arguments!!

"One of the reasons there are much better statistics on the effect of alcohol on driving is that it is legal, and has been studied" the studies i posted are not aboutstatistics though, but on the field practice...so for sure it is easier to say alcool is more dangerous as per statistics, but when they make tests on the field i tend to believe it a bit more!

"I ask you, do you want to unleash another intoxicant to study the effects, knowing you will be one of the 'lab rats' who might end up being a statistic" unfortunately your drifting in a form of fantasy there, as my answer can only be a question, why would i be a statistic?? a victim of impaired driving? i am willing to unleash an intoxicant to study it's effects with a bit more objectivity, because up now we've been filled with propaganda! ( http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/ ) take a look they are being objective with real studies...

"There is a point where the consumption of alcohol, as I described earlier can be stopped, where generally, the human organism is deemed to function well enough to operate a motor vehicle" and there is a point where the consumption of marijuana can be stopped! i wasn't smoking til i couldn't see a thing or i couldn't recognize my mother!! but some people do!

"You make the claim that the grower would know how potent the pot is, but different parts of the plant contain different concentrations of resin," yep this i know, i grew my plants, my point is to grow this plant to have a potency that could really "impair" your mind to a noticeable point, you would need to know what you are doing, really...a plant growing outdoor will never have the same potency of a plant grown indoor (grown from the same grower) and somebody that knows what he is doing, knows what kind of plant he is growing, and what are the parts of the plant that are more potent... so "is not going to be able to anticipate necessarily the potencey of the adult plant, nor the potency of different parts of the plant" usually a mature smoker is taking only 1 puff to test...so yes the futur use of that plant will be anticipated...

"Iirc, High Times did a study years ago that found that pot smokers smoke the same amount, regardless of how potent the pot. " in a party, you bet!!! on personnal recreationnal or i am willing to say, spiritual use, one will smoke depending on what level of high he wants to get...some are still coing the full lenght (usually more teens) some like i did will take one or 2 puff and enjoy!

And finally, FWIW, I do not smoke pot (anymore), nor drink, but have known many over the years who did one or the other or both. I drive.

But thanks for your post! you are being more reasonable than many other and i think it's good to debate with you! i learn more with your arguments than per say cherry or eleni's argument!

Thanks

[TKDietz]

That woman had both marijuana metabolites in her blood and Ecstasy. She may or may not have been intoxicated at the time of the accident. Experts testified at her trial that the amounts in her blood were consistent with someone who had used these drugs before but were no longer impaired by them. Her defense was that she was not intoxicated but just fell asleep at the wheel. She was convicted though under a statute that does not distinguish between those who are impaired and those who may have used drugs days or weeks before. If there are any traces of the drugs or even just metabolites left after the body has metabolized the drugs (with marijuana these can remain longer than thirty days), the person is guilty of "driving impaired." I don't know if she was intoxicated or not, but if she had been partying all night doing ecstasy, even if the drug had completely worn off, she should not have been driving. That stuff wears people out. She should have gone to bed and then nobody would have gotten killed.

[samtheman]

So quoting her defense lawyers makes you feel confident that doper drivers are fine?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You have a problem, not me. I have five children. The oldest is a police officer. The next is a high school teacher. I have stay-at-home mommy daughters, and one in school, still.

HA! Toasted!

You know, I've often wondered what assumptions the pro-WOD posters make about those of us on the other side. Sometimes it seems like they're positive we're all a bunch of tie-dye wearing, Phish-listening losers with dreds who post from Mommy's basement . . . waiting for Mom to leave so we can spark up the bong.

I think they'd be shocked to learn the real truth . . . that we're normal, everyday people---just like them. You, for example---an accomplished person with five well-adjusted children. Stereotypes are killers.

[davesdude]

"I think they'd be shocked to learn the real truth . . . that we're normal, everyday people---just like them. You, for example---an accomplished person with five well-adjusted children. Stereotypes are killers."

they wouldn't be only shocked, they'd be scared! if they are not already...they are scared "pothead" might get to the top (president) because the propaganda has been effective on them, they still see pot as being the devil taking a grip on it's user!!! it's unconceivable for them to accept what is different to them, people who have explored the other side of legal, illegal...

they are stuck in their own little world presented by their government, and to get out of this world is called "unpatriotic"!

[TKDietz]

I really have a hard time believing there are all these people out there drinking alcohol just for the taste. I don't know that I've ever met anyone like that. For that matter, most people who don't drink alcohol don't really like the taste when they do try it unless the taste is masked by fruity sweeteners or some other taste that hides the alcohol. Most have to acquire a taste for alcoholic beverages like beer or a nice red wine. And as for not getting a buzz after a couple of glasses of wine with a meal, I say bull. Even just that much gives you a nice warm buzz. It feels good. It slightly alters your perception. I gives you a nice feeling of well being. Personally, I really like doing that. It's a great way to unwind and enhance the enjoyment of a good meal and whoever I am sharing that experience with. I'd be lying to myself though if I said I was only drinking the wine for the taste. There are all sorts of good tasting drinks with no alcohol in them I could choose. If I choose the wine it's because I want that nice warm buzz that comes along with it.

You said something in a previous post about people enjoying the "social aspect" of drinking. What do you think that "social aspect" is? People drink at get togethers because it enhances the experience. It enhances the experience because the alcohol lowers inhibitions and provides a sense of well being. It alters perceptions. It makes not so pretty girls look pretty. It makes not so funny jokes funny. People talk more, laugh more, and have more fun because they are intoxicated, even if just mildly so. Are they all just drinking for the taste? Heck no. If they say they are they are lying to you and themselves.

If anyone who uses an intoxicant with the intent of altering his perception is abusing that intoxicant than just about everyone who ever drinks any alcohol is abusing it. Certainly anyone who drinks alcohol to unwind or enhance the enjoyment of something is drinking to alter their perceptions. They may never use those particular words or think about it in those terms, but that is exactly what they are doing.

[rhombus]

Amen to that.