Posted on 07/16/2021 6:57:20 PM PDT by Right Wing Vegan
“Marijuana users’ susceptibility to false memories (scary!) make them prone to risk of “remembering” there was nothing in the blind spot they checked”
No, that would be a failure of true memory, whereas your link says “True memory was not affected by cannabis at immediate test”.
“Someone marijuana impaired can seem fine in terms of walking a line.”
Evidence? “People who drive under the influence of marijuana can experience dangerous effects: slower reactions, lane weaving, decreased coordination” -https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana
Nope.
True memory involves recollection of established memory, in this study "old (i.e., studied) words". False memory involves "memories of nonexperienced events/details".
dangerous effects: slower reactions, lane weaving, decreased coordination
Sure. But many can seem fine walking a line. I remember one scary time my brother was driving after just a few hits off his friends' blunt. He seemed perfectly alert, no issues walking, then he blew two stop signs and nearly sped through a red light before I finally convinced him to pull over. He is otherwise a great driver. He fortunately gave up pot and now has been a CDL driver for several years with not even a speeding ticket.
“True memory involves recollection of established memory, in this study “old (i.e., studied) words”.”
No, the statement I quoted was about immediate memory.
“But many can seem fine walking a line. I remember one scary time”
One time does not extrapolate to many.
Nope again. "Immediate test." Immediate there means recollection while high, as opposed to recollection one week later.
In the context of these studies, it extrapolates to enough.
In the context of these studies
Your one time was part of no study, and was not randomly selected - it doesn't extrapolate at all.
True memory involves recollection of established memory, in this study “old (i.e., studied) words”.
No, the statement I quoted was about immediate memory.
Immediate there means recollection while high, as opposed to recollection one week later.
"Memory was tested immediately (encoding and retrieval under drug influence)" - that is, immediate means not only high but the same episode of being high as when exposed to the thing to be remembered. Therefore NOT "old" as you claimed.
The world "old" is used in the text for true memory. Exact quote:
did not affect the response to old words (true memory)
The point is that such memory, regardless of when it's recalled is what they're calling true memory.
It distinguishes false memories: memories things/events that didn't happen.
If you see a red light and then recall it as green, that's a false memory.
If you see a red light but don't recall seeing the light at all, that's a failure of true memory.
Actually, never looking at the light and recalling that you did and saw a green light would be a better example.
did not affect the response to old words (true memory)
They're not defining true memory there but noting which subset of results they're referring to. And "old" is neither "immediate" nor "delayed" but an orthogonal distinction: "the presentation of words or events to which one has been exposed before (“old”) or not (“new”)."
A memory can be true or false, and immediate or delayed; true implies neither old nor delayed: "Fig. 1 depicts the mean DRM true and false memory rates for the two drug conditions at immediate (Fig. 1A) and delayed (Fig. 1B) test."
The point is that such memory, regardless of when it's recalled is what they're calling true memory.
It distinguishes false memories: memories things/events that didn't happen.
If you see a red light and then recall it as green, that's a false memory.
If you see a red light but don't recall seeing the light at all, that's a failure of true memory.
Likewise, if you see a vehicle in your blind spot but don't recall seeing the vehicle at all, that's a failure of true memory - as I said, contrary to your claim, “Marijuana users’ susceptibility to false memories (scary!) make them prone to risk of “remembering” there was nothing in the blind spot they checked”.
I can see now that the prior example, looking at a red light and remembering it green might be be viewed either way, as a false memory or failure of true.
Canada has made it illegal to drive with a THC blood concentration of more than 5ng/ml - that's objective.
There too. The example should have been: never checking or blind spot but recalling you did and it was clear.
If true, it's objective for making it illegal, but the debate still rages regarding over what is objective for intoxication per se.
Indeed. Cheech & Chong right there.
“it’s objective for making it illegal”
And if it gets high drivers off the road as well as BAC standards get drunk drivers off the road, that’s all the law is authorized to care about.
Then there are old standbys like saying the alphabet backward ... I can’t imagine a stoner does those any better than a drunk.
Any bright line rule is better than none, but citing it begs the original question of testing intoxication in each case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.