Marijuana Not a Factor in Driving Accidents

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

[davesdude]

"If anyone who uses an intoxicant with the intent of altering his perception is abusing"

would you think is definition of abuse is a bit, how to say, overrated? (not sure if this word aply here, my english dictionnary is not up to date!!)

[TKDietz]

That is not what I said at all. I said that she had ecstacy in her system as well as marijuana metabolites and that experts at her trial testified that the level of these substances in her system were consistent with someone who had used these substances before but would have not been impaired by them at the time of the accident. That didn't really matter though because the law in that state did not require impairment. It is a per se law that only requires a positive drug test, even if all the positive drug tests proves is that some time in the past few days or weeks the person consumed some type of intoxicant.

I do not think it is okay to drive while impaired by any intoxicant, whether it is alcohol, marijuana, ecstasy, whatever. I was familiar with the case you were citing though and thought it would be fair to point out both that there was not only marijuana metabolites in her blood but also another drug, ecstacy, and that there was evidence that she was in fact not intoxicated at the time of the accident.

[davesdude]

He is just being objective on the fact that even if there is trace of drugs in the blood, the person could have taken it 2 weeks ago...Now if you think the effect of these drugs still impairs you after 2 weeks, even after 2 days, make some search...

[davesdude]

"oh no, French... oh boy... I surrender :D hehe"

hehe i hear ya! i even surrender on myself sometime!

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

If you are going to quote me, kindly do not insert words, parenthetically or otherwise, which change the meaning of the quote, especially on this topic. I do not smoke pot. Never have. I had a (now ex) wife who did. Heavy emphasis on the "ex".

My observations are based on her behaviour, and others.

At one time I did drink, so if I wanted to interject "(anymore)" the proper place to put it would have been after "...nor drink".

I do not like being impaired, period.

I grew tobacco when I was younger, in Maryland, and still smoke that now (I got the nickname from smoking cigars in college--one of only two cigar smokers in the whole place).

But while we are dealing with observations, short of the one-hitter crowd, none of her friends smoked just one or two puffs, as I observed, they smoked until it (the joint) was gone.

Now I will call on your sense of honesty and fairness, for study purposes.

I will not deny your personal assertions that you can stop smoking pot before you are too stoned to function, nor, for the sake of argument will I even contest that you can, by benefit of experience, anticipate how much impairment you will get from a given amount smoked.

Would you contend that you are in the majority in this instance? That most other-or even all other- pot smokers can meter their dosage to remain functional, or that they would do so?

The latter is the most critical point.

The reason most alcohol impaired drivers assert that they have "only had two beers" (friends in law enforcement assure me this is a cliche) is that that is the level where, almost universally, there is little impairment of judgement and motor skill.

Due to legislation regulating the alcohol content of beer, wine, and distilled spirits, the beer bought in California will have the same intoxicant content as one of the same kind bought in New York or anywhere in between. For all practical purposes, a glass of wine or a mixed drink (measured shots) will have roughly the same alcohol content. Anyone who has consumed alcoholic beverages should have an idea of where their limit is.

But, beyond that significant fraction of alcohol consumers who can and do stop before being too impaired to drive, whether drinking by the 'numbers' or utilizing a personal, lower limit, there are those who continue to consume past that point.

As you said, ...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! and 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!

If you are on the road, and the some who do smoke until they 'can't recognize their mothers' are also, you will be one of the lab rats in any study of the effects of the use of marijuana on driving death tolls on the highway, just as you currently are one of the 'lab rats' in the continuing study of the abuse of alcohol and driving/accident/fatality statistics, whether you drink and drive or not. Others on the highway do.

While the odds of your survival are pretty good, provided your demise is not self-inflicted, your odds of becoming a victim of an auto wreck increase with an increase in the number of impaired drivers on the road, even if you do not include yourself in the impaired category.

As I stated in a previous post, anyone who has been consuming both alcohol and marijuana, if pulled over or in an accident, would assert that they had only been drinking rather than suffer the ramifications of admitting to using marijuana where it is illegal and face drug charges as well.

With that in mind, it is likely that pot smokers are underrepresented in current accident statistics, that in fact at least a portion of the accidents attributed solely to alcohol are in fact caused by impairment due to either a combination of alcohol and marijuana or perhaps by pot.

While testing at .08 B.A.C. is a definite legal impairment in most jurisdictions in the US, a driver can be convicted of DUI with a lower concentration in the bloodstream if impairment is demonstrated.

As a practical matter, the lack of ability to quantifiably test for combined effects, or even readily test for the concentration of marijuana's active ingredients render enforcement of impaired driving laws problematical, in that the determination of impairment is, of necessity, left at the discretion of the officer who makes the stop or investigates the accident.

That would be further complicated by the greater latency of canabinoids in the human system, the reason people have flunked screening tests a week or more after having last consumed pot.

Alcohol, on the other hand is normally eliminated within 24 hours, the exception being 'hardcore' alcoholics who often maintain a B.A.C. above normal legal driving limits by virtue of nearly continuous consumption of alcohol during their waking hours. (Note that this does not stop them from driving, with or without a license. Ultimately, in many cases, only confinement in either a penal institiution or a rehab clinic gets them off the road.)

Would you, as a pot smoker, trust your future as a licensed motor vehicle operator to the discretion of a police officer (who probably does not smoke pot) in any jurisdiction, not just where you know (and smoke pot with) the police?

BTW, I also have to laugh at assertions that pot is non-addictive. I have observed the reaction among pot smokers when supplies 'dry up', and it is every bit as bad as (or worse than) someone who realizes they have left their (tobacco) cigarettes at the house and there is no place to get one.

[Echo Talon]

hehe i hear ya! i even surrender on myself sometime!

LOL!!!!!!! HAHAHA! thanks for the laugh! :)

[davesdude]

"If you are going to quote me, kindly do not insert words,"

i was actually talking about myself!!! sorry for the misunderstanding!!! i used to smoke pot but stopped!

i'll reply a bit later to the rest of your post!! Thanks!

[KeepUSfree]

No, Would you say the folks who started this country (ie. Washington, JEfferson, etc.) had "impaired judgement" - because they broke the law?? Sometimes, the law is wrong. Period.

Now the question comes up...hmm which will give me a buzz while not harming me as much physically - and the answer is CLEARLY pot.

So, I would think anyone who consumes something as harmful and dangerous as alcohol - when a safer, less inebriating substitute is available shows "impaired judgement" to me.

I would also think anyone who then abuses their body with alcohol because the government says the substitue is "bad", is both brainwashed and ball-less - sucking up the propaganda while trumpeting their own hypocritical self-righteousness - all while sucking down a beer.

[davesdude]

"I will not deny your personal assertions that you can stop smoking pot before you are too stoned to function, nor, for the sake of argument will I even contest that you can, by benefit of experience, anticipate how much impairment you will get from a given amount smoked.

Would you contend that you are in the majority in this instance? That most other-or even all other- pot smokers can meter their dosage to remain functional, or that they would do so? "

Thanks! too few people are willing to "trust" somebody who has already smoked pot... so in answer to that i believe i am part of a minority that can "anticipate" potency, but that's a matter of proper "education" to the user, unfortunately not available due to it's legal status which brings me to...

"Due to legislation regulating the alcohol content of beer, wine, and distilled spirits, the beer bought in California will have the same intoxicant content as one of the same kind bought in New York"

if you go in amsterdam, you can speak of strain of pot like you speak a brand of alcool here(everywhere actually)...down there, they know what they are talking about as oppose to teens smoking here... but be sure that in my surroundings (family, friends) pot is almost part of the culture, so no abuse are made out of it, because we really know what it is...you can probably tell me more about tobacco than anyone else! maybe that explains an overrated feeling about reasonable pot smoker!
but again, the illegal status of the drug makes it unknown...

"As I stated in a previous post, anyone who has been consuming both alcohol and marijuana, if pulled over or in an accident," yes and i answered to that in my previous post to that...i base my arguments on field test, not statistics, plus, consuming alcool and marihuana and driving, that is something totally absurd to do! Would you agree that if it was legal (pot), technology would evolve a bit more over the systems detecting it?

"BTW, I also have to laugh at assertions that pot is non-addictive. I have observed the reaction among pot smokers when supplies 'dry up', and it is every bit as bad as (or worse than) someone who realizes they have left their (tobacco) cigarettes at the house and there is no place to get one."

please have confidence in what i will tell you as i was not only a pot smoker but a really heavy user at sometime...yes the period of "dry stash" are something "some" user, especially heavy, are complaining about...when the stash dry up, you can't walk where you forgot it or at the corner store to get some, so if you want to smoke you have to wait for a week sometimes...but still there is no physical withdrawal out of it, only a psychological pain of not following your habit, because yes pot is habit forming especially with joint, as it ain't with a bong (exception made for teens)... so not addictive but habit forming...once you brake that habit or you are willing to brake the habit like i did, you just plainly stop without consequences, as opposed to much of all the other drugs...

thanks again for your post, you pointed out an important fact about dr ugs, the lack of knowledge...especially on the road for now, we can't detect drug user as easily as with alcool...

[Bacon Man]

Had a friend in high school that was a much safer driver while high. I remember riding to a concert with him once. On the way to the show, I twice thought we were going to wreck but the ride back was the exact opposite.

[Bacon Man]

No, it just dupes you into thinking you're going 80 mph when you're really only going 22 mph

The trick is to drive 80-100 mph whenever possible so you're senses are used to it. :)

[Allegra]

The trick is to drive 80-100 mph whenever possible so you're senses are used to it. :)

If you go any slower than that on Beltway 8, people will run you over.

I was tailgated while doing 87 on there once.

I flipped the driver off.

I survived.

[davesdude]

this is what I used to do! so when i had a smoke and driving within the speed limit (while pink floyd playing), it was an actual joyride! :D

[davesdude]

Please tell me though if there is a question i didn't answer, as i really want to push the issue as far as possible!

[Bacon Man]

I was tailgated while doing 87 on there once.

Only 87 on Beltway 8?! You're lucky you weren't shot at! ;)

[gathersnomoss]

No, but those pot smoking cell phone users are a danger to small children and animals.

[TKDietz]

That's probably not the best word to use but I know what you mean. I do disagree with defining abuse as any use of any intoxicant to alter one's perception. Such a broad definition would make any use of any intoxicant for "recreational purposes" abuse. The only way you can define it that way and not consider yourself an abuser if you are even just a moderate alcohol drinker is to lie to yourself about why you consume alcohol.

[davesdude]

When you lie to yourself, that is where it becomes problematic, i believe it even applies to other thing than intoxicant...

[davesdude]

you seem like quite an obejective person, tell me what do you think about this issue?? you can write me with the mail system if it's too personnal...

[TKDietz]

I am not sure which issue you are refering to.