Stoned drivers are safe drivers!

[immoderate]

This is an article from a few years back. But there have been postings here of late that reflect the fears of people that with medical marijuana there will be an increase in the number of drivers "under the influence."

Well, fear not!

Stoned drivers are safe drivers!

By Dana Larsen - Tuesday, January 11 2005

Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents.


The effects of marijuana use on driving performance have been extensively researched over the last 20 years. All major studies show that marijuana consumption has little or no effect on driving ability, and may actually reduce accidents. Here's a summary of the biggest studies into pot use and driving.

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.


A 1993 NHTSA study dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that THC caused no impairment except for a slight deficiency in the driver's ability to "maintain a steady lateral position on the road." This means that the THC-dosed drivers had a little trouble staying smack in the center of their lanes, but showed no other problems. The study noted that the effects of even high doses of THC were far less than that of alcohol or many prescription drugs. The study concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."


More at the link: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html

My apologies if this has been posted before. But a quick search only turned up posts with the "hazards" of driving stoned. :)

--imm

[liberal N proud]

1. Maybe it is because all the stoned drivers are all at the drive through

Munchies

:shrug:

[immoderate]

3. An unsolicited testimonial! Welcome aboard!

B-)

--imm

[BeyondGeography]

2. Driving gets in the way of being stoned

It's a terrible distraction.

[immoderate]

4. You can learn to block those things out!

Pay no attention to things whizzing by.

--imm

[Cirque du So-What]

5. What about peripheral vision?

The phenomenon known as 'tunnel vision' among those high on cannabis is well-documented. That's not a good thing to have while driving. I see that the article makes no mention of it which renders it a biased source. Far be it from me to condemn cannabis users, but an honest discussion will make mention of any potential downside - and impaired vision while driving is a definite downside IMO.

[immoderate]

7. Well documented?

If it has any effect, it doesn't show up in the studies.

You declaring something a biased source (which it is, being a pot head site) does not change the data. :shrug:


--imm

[Cirque du So-What]

11. I don't know what 'studies' you're citing. The biased source linked in your OP?

but get back to me when you can refute these:

2. Impaired memory for recent events, difficulty concentrating, dreamlike states, impaired motor coordination, impaired driving and other psychomotor skills, slowed reaction time, impaired goal-directed mental activity, and altered peripheral vision are common associated effects. (Adams and Martin 1996; Fehr and Kalant 1983; Hollister 1988a; Institute of Medicine 1982; Tart 1971)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/body/effects.html

Ahhh...fuckit. If you're interested, just do your own Google search on the terms marijuana "peripheral vision" documented studies...not that any amount of evidence will matter a tinker's damn to anyone who refuses to face the possibility of being wrong.

[immoderate]

17. Reefer Madness? National Institure on Drug Abuse is not biased?

The studies you cite are not based on performance of drivers. Some have been refuted.

Wouldn't I notice the disappearance of my peripheral vision? :shrug:

--imm

[JuniperLea]

29. You should look into those groups...

Adams and Martin; Fehr and Kalant; Hollister... they have been pushing the same bullshit for years, and there are plenty of studies that take them to task and shine a light on the nonsense they preach.

And for the record, after 40 years I have awesome peripheral vision, stoned or not, and I get safe driver discounts on my insurance every year. Additionally, there are many studies that show IMPROVED health of the eyes due to better blood flow. You should look that up too.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Tunnel vision? I've never heard of any such result from cannabis

Well documented, but unheard of. I have never, never heard of anyone having 'tunnel vision' from cannabis. Such an effect would be unpleasant and cannabis would not be so well liked if it gave people tunnel vision. Crazy talk.
and of course, no link at all. Just a proclamation of 'well documented facts' that no one else has experienced, nor heard of, nor read about in all recorded literature.....

[Cirque du So-What]

13. See #11 above

De Nile...it's not just a river in Africa any longer.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Lots of studies say many things. Most are skewed.

Facts are facts. No one I know out of hundreds of cannabis users has ever said a thing about 'tunnel vision' and in addition, if they did, they would not use it, same goes for me, and I need it for medicine. So you know, when a 'study' discovers something that can not be supported by others, that 'information' is highly suspect. Don't you think it odd that they 'find' this but no one experiences it at all? Tunnel vision? That is just silly talk. Made up stuff. Pulled from their asses. You need to understand that anti cannabis 'science' has said many things, including some racist bullshit, most of the early opposition was framed with 'studies' that 'proved' it made blacks and Mexicans 'loco' and they made laws against such people.
Of course, I'm gay, and 'studies' about us have said many vile things that were made up out of agenda and rhetoric. Do you also agree with all of those 'studies' or with the later studies that said the first ones were bigoted assumptions gussied up with lab talk and greased statistics?
Many do not like to be reminded of the things that 'science' has said for money, or out of being wrong. They are in denial of facts that are right there in front of them. They are not pleased with the contradictory 'studies' all of which claim to be 'science'. Some call 'creation studies' a science. Does not make it so. Eugenics was a huge area of interest for 'science' for many years, then stuff in Germany made it looks sort of less than intelligent. But it was science. It was a subject of great discussion and interest across the scientific community. Eugenics in many ways was the first modern meal of the 'science community'. Fun to deny that. To pretend 'science' is always pure and correct, but that is again, silly talk.
A study could tell me that the sky is striped, I would not believe it over my own eyes. You would. And that is how stuff like Eugenics gets rolling. 'It's Science! It is always right!'
Right wing nuts show me 'studies' that prove anything they wish to believe. They always have. Gays are defective, that sort of 'science'.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

33. Well said!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

I have many, many friends as well... I've never heard of such a thing outside of these studies. And when you Google the names of those who conducted these alleged studies, you will only find this kind of study! If they were such wonderful sources of perfection in scientific studies, wouldn't the world have used them for studies other than those on The Weed?

[JuniperLea]

31. Excellent points!

It would be annoying for sure.

Let's not forget all the studies that show IMPROVEMENT of eye health due to better blood circulation and the lowering of eye pressure.

[Cirque du So-What]

34. Be that as it may...

many respondents in this thread are unwilling to even consider anything that is even remotely threatening to their mindset. Sad, really. They are too hung-up on calling me all sorts of nasty names rather than consider the possibility that there's any downside to cannabis intoxication while operating a motor vehicle. Instead, they attack someone who has advocated for medical marijuana use for many years. One little step outside their definition of orthodoxy, however, merits getting called everything from a homophobe to a fascist.

[JuniperLea]

39. I don't see it that way...

I see it as well-informed people who have studied this subject for years, me included, who have heard all this stuff before.

I'm sorry you are getting the shitty end of the stick here, I truly am. I'm very tired of InterTube battles of all stripes.

One easy self-test would be to pay attention to accident reporting. I read about alcohol fueled wreaks all the time, but I've never heard of someone being high on The Weed causing a big smashup. I believe if there were such things happening, we sure as hell would be hearing about it... it would be another weed hater whipped up frenzy in the making, but with finger pointing.

I considered it... and rejected it. There are far more studies out there showing increased eye health with use of The Weed than there are showing vision impairment. I've heard the tunnel vision thing with alcohol consumption, but never with The Weed.

[Cirque du So-What]

47. I guess you're going to be the next one to pooh-pooh the notion entirely?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22peripheral+vision%22+marijuana&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

I don't have the funds to purchase all those articles, but if this doesn't show that studies have been conducted on the subject, then all I can do is damn my own lying eyes. Note that some of these are not 'ancient history' as has already been claimed in this thread.

[JuniperLea]

73. Who funded the studies?

What other studies have these groups undertaken?

[deaniac21]

55. It cures your lungs too.

[JuniperLea]

72. It actually gets more blood circulating...

And is a bronchial dialator... I've known many asthmatics to smoke so they can breath better.

[deaniac21]

81. Yeah, it's that curing smoke!

[Scout]

51. and i think you would be a perfect example of this:

"unwilling to even consider anything that is even remotely threatening to their mindset"

[JuniperLea]

54. I think you're right...

There is some projection here, no doubt. I also think this InterTube environment is toxic and not everyone can survive in the circuitry jungle.

[MadHound]

24. Got any link for that bullshit?

Because I know, from extensive experience in my youth, that you don't get "tunnel vision" when you are high.

[Cirque du So-What]

27. Check the link I provided

along with those that can be readily conjured with teh Google. Well, if it never happened to YOU, then I guess all those studies are wrong :eyes:

[MadHound]

35. Got a non-biased link of more recent vintage?

Seriously, the Institute of Medicine, from the '80's? The "Just Say No, scare the hell out of 'em" '80's.

Frankly, this is the first time I've heard of the "tunnel vision" effect, from either medical or anecdotal studies. I know I certainly didn't experience it(and being a long distance bike rider at the time, peripheral vision was of vital importance to me), and none of the hundreds of people I've known who smoked dope experienced it.

Have you ever smoked dope and experienced said "tunnel vision"?

And after doing some Googling, the only thing I come out is an unsubstantiated claim about tunnel vision, a claim that comes from an addiction prevention facility, hardly an unbiased source.

After doing some quick searching in academic journals, I come up with nothing.

Nothing, that's what you appear to be basing this claim on.

[Occulus]

37. Ever seen a college marching band? n/t

[Politicalboi]

69. So if it happened to one person

With their study then they are right, right? I've smoked for 30 years and partied with a lot of people who NEVER experienced tunnel vision. Marijuana studies for the last 35 years have mostly been lies. They only got grants if their study showed a negative effect of Marijuana as in the 1974 Virgina Tech study that showed MJ reduced tumors. They buried that study. And the monkeys they used in labs were suffocated with smoke so they passed out, and lost brain cells.
Marijuana today is nothing like it used to be. It used to be GOOD!.

[phleshdef]

25. That kind of stuff only happens to people who are new to using marijuana.

Once you've gotten high a handful of times, you get a tolerance and its never like that again.

[seabeyond]

6. telling my 70 something yr old father about pot. he was surprised. you have smoked it?

lol, ya. then saying, well was your generation, imagine both me and hubby have.

ya, well, you have come by unexpectedly at times when hubby and i had been stoned, lol.

what a surprise.

but telling him about that vs alcohol and driving.... go way slower than i would unstoned.

[JuniperLea]

57. I won't drive past one drink with dinner...

Not a chance! But I've always heard that smoking more pot doesn't get you more stoned, it just gets you less pot;)

My grandpa used to check my eyes every time I came in the house... and boy was I careful not to go over there stoned! LOL!

[seabeyond]

70. my parents had never done it. my parents were clueless and didnt even think

a grown woman would be stoned. beyond their world. lol

my boys understand that isnt gonna fly in this house.

[JuniperLea]

74. None of my kids are interested...

Not in the least. I always figured it was because I never hid it from them... there was no mystery at all.

I first did it out of rebellion, pure and simple.

I am one mellow old chick... I take care of business, not lazy, good thinking skills... hasn't been a problem.

[seabeyond]

76. to this point, neither of my kids have been either.

or booze. or any other drug.

but i never did it in front of them, or they didnt know when i had taken a puff. i have long since stopped, though.

[JuniperLea]

77. My dad eats brownies now...

He has a neurological dysfunction and his "space cakes" are the only thing that help him to sleep.

[seabeyond]

79. does that really work

have you tried it? the same as smoking it.

[JuniperLea]

84. Stronger, I think... but way mellow...

Just a small amount does it. I fell asleep on the couch and slept clear through till morning. Woke refreshed and clear headed and ready to rock the day!

[immoderate]

8. Four unrecs? Party poopers!

:wtf: Who is so unsocial?

--imm

[meow mix]

9. and yet we have an "allowable limit:" of alcohol for driving. which is proven unsafe.

love our science based laws.

[RZM]

10. Depends on whether or not you consider driving 10 mph below the limit 'safe'

;)

[RegieRocker]

14. The thing that makes mary jane unsafe while driving is

paranoia of the pig.

[devilgrrl]

15. Yeah. Back in the 70's.

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. And eating while driving.

;) Always SO FREAKIN' HUNGRY!

[Major Nikon]

16. Even if that's true, it still makes black men rape white women

[immoderate]

18. That's a red lobster! It's always the woman's fault.

Even if she's stoned!

--imm

[Major Nikon]

20. That shit is funny till you realize it was exactly the 'logic' used to ban MJ

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and many others."

-- Harry J. Anslinger, Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner, 1930-1962

Most of the shit-for-brains rationale used to ban MJ was highly racist.

[JuniperLea]

59. Well done!

We see this tactic all the time! We are seeing it right now in politics! We are seeing the demonization of liberals and progressives and... gulp... BLACK presidents!

[undeterred]

19. I want the drivers around me to be sober and undrugged.

[immoderate]

30. Not that simple. Most are caffeinated!

Methedrine was invented by WWII Germans to improve pilot alertness and response.

Having said that, performance testing should be the determinant. Anyone driving a car can be lethal, and I always watch out for them. Some may do better when medicated.

--imm

[Major Nikon]

36. The US military gives amphetamines to pilots to this day

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071789/ns/us_news-only_on_msnbc_com/t/go-pills-war-drugs/

[Occulus]

40. And some US drivers are prescribed Desoxyn.

That's the trade name for meth.

[seabeyond]

42. children in back seat, sleepy, looking for some place, cell phone, text, eating....

i want peace in the world and everyone being respectful and nice to the other.

[frylock]

61. good luck with that..

i see people sucking on nicotine and chugging caffeine all the time on the highway.

[undeterred]

65. We have a problem in Madison of people causing accidents

because they are driving while high on heroin. The police are having to carry and administer narcan. I don't think this is a subject to make light of.

[Avalux]

64. ....and not eating, putting on make-up, talking or texting on phones......

I'd rather they WERE stoned actually with all the other distractions to consider. ;)

[Dreamer Tatum]

22. Um, yeah. Wake me when a non-advocacy group trumpets these results.nt

[immoderate]

45. Sort of Catch-22(ish) doncha think?

Doesn't trumpeting these results kind of define an advocacy group? :shrug:

--imm

[Major Nikon]

48. Gotta love circular 'logic'

If a group was trumpeting these results, then that would make them an advocacy group, now wouldn't it?

So by your 'logic' no evidence would ever meet your standard, which is ad hominem tripe to begin with.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. Cigarettes found to be totally healthy - says the Tobacco Foundation nt

[Major Nikon]

52. So now you move on to false analogies as proof for your other failed logic strategies

Brilliant!

[JuniperLea]

58. LOL!

No shit! I remember seeing actors posing as doctors in the TV ads! Wasn't that whole shtick about "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV" related to cig ads?

Oh that battle was hard fought... it took years of court battles before the tobacco industry was forced to put warnings on cig packs.

[JuniperLea]

60. Try Googling these research groups...

It's very telling. G'head... one little Google hit won't hurt you... it's enlightening.

[Major Nikon]

62. Yes, the government department of transportation for various countries

Also universities and road safety advocacy groups.

Very enlightening.

[JuniperLea]

23. A friend of mine was part of this study!

It's awesome to see the outcome!

I think it lowers violent crime levels as well. How can you hurt anyone when you are so mellow?

[chemp]

28. I used to stop at every stop sign/red light when high

going again was a different story....

[DirkGently]

32. Skeptical. Fully onboard most attacks on MJ are overblown. But not buying it's safe to drive stoned.

Anything that changes your consciousness, perception, or motor skills is a potential problem when operating machinery.

Anecdotally, I've noted people under the influence of MJ react more slowly, see and hear things differently, get "spaghetti legs," become sleepy or dizzy, and have trouble with pathfinding and linear thinking in general.

Having trouble "maintaining lateral stability on the road" I think suggests a greater problem than not staying in the exact center of the lane. A more realistic interpretation might be "may interpret a cornfield as on onramp."

I think you counteract the the rational arguments against cannabis prohibition when you reach for questionable conclusions like this one.

[immoderate]

41. You are making some assumptions...

That people are perfectly, or even optimally, conscious, perceptual, or motor skilled without any influence.

There are always distractions, perceptual distortions, and filters. Undrugged people cause accidents. How can that happen? No doubt what alcohol or hypnotics will do. Downers and drunks should avoid machinery.

In your anecdotal studies, consider that you know that person is "stoned." Beware of confirmation bias. They are relaxed to the effects, which are mostly not physical.

Performance tests should be the determinant.

--imm

[frylock]

63. i like to burn tree before my 15 mile mt bike rides..

no spaghetti legs, no sleepiness or dizziness, no loss of coordination, no trouble in pathfinding (wth the means). in fact, i'm more focused, energized, and i am enjoying myself immensely as i rail singletrack at speeds of up to 30 mph.

[DirkGently]

66. Jesus. Good on you. Can't imagine (anecdotally) anyone pursuing high-speed sports in that condition.

I think there's a lot of variation in the effects, based on the strain of MJ, the user, user's experience, passage of time, etc.

I've seen people have an energized reaction, such as cleaning and organizing the house or starting an oil painting or three.

I've also seen people stare into a buglight for an hour or walk into a sliding glass door.

I took a quick spin through the Internets, and noted the NHSTA was indeed befuddled when it conducted tests, and only established greater following distances, mildly increased reaction time (so mild as to be uncertain they were real) and the aforementioned "lack of lateral stability."

Not sure I trust their administration of the drug was realistic, given the description of "1-3 cigarettes." Three real-world joints in a row (assuming that's what they mean) would render most people "laterally unstable" to the point they'd be lucky to locate the garage, much less go for a drive.



speling

[frylock]

67. the sativa is more energizing while the indica is good for nighttime use..

i really do enjoy smoking a couple of bowls of sativa and going out to the garage to wrench on my bikes!

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. It's TRUE!

I can attest to the fact. :hippie::smoke::hippie:

[WI_DEM]

44. So are they suggesting then that people get stoned and drive?

I doubt it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. That would be the logical next step, but we all know that's NOT going to happen.

They lose revenue from not being able to ticket every Tom, Dick and Harr(y)ietta.

[Major Nikon]

49. No, what they are suggesting is that there are no reasonable arguments for keeping MJ illegal

[robdogbucky]

53. Hmmmmm.......

Marijuana Smoking Associated With Minimal Changes In Driving Performance, Study Finds
FRIDAY, 28 MAY 2010 13:00 PRESS RELEASE AUTOMOTIVE


Hartford, CT—(ENEWSPF)—May 28, 2010 Subjects exhibit virtually identical psychomotor skills on a battery of driving simulator tests prior to and shortly after smoking marijuana, according to clinical trial data published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. Investigators from Hartford Hospital in Connecticut and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine assessed the simulated driving performance of 85 subjects in a double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Volunteers responded to various simulated events associated with automobile crash risk — such as avoiding a driver who was entering an intersection illegally, deciding to stop or go through a changing traffic light, responding to the presence of emergency vehicles, avoiding colliding with a dog who entered into traffic, and maintaining safe driving during a secondary (in-the-car) auditory distraction. Subjects performed the tests sober and then again 30 minutes after smoking a single marijuana cigarette containing either 2.9 percent THC or zero THC (placebo).

Investigators reported that volunteers performed virtually the same after smoking cannabis as they did sober and/or after consuming a placebo. "No differences were found during the baseline driving segment (and the) collision avoidance scenarios," authors reported. Investigators did note, "Participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving placebo cigarette during (the) distracted section of the drive." Authors hypothesized that subjects' reduction in speed on this task suggested that they may have been compensating for perceived impairment. "o other changes in driving performance were found," researchers concluded.

A 2008 driving simulator study published in the scientific journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention also reported that drivers administered cannabis are likely to decrease their driving speed. "Average speed was the most sensitive driving performance variable affected by both THC and alcohol but with an opposite effect," investigators reported. "Smoking THC cigarettes caused drivers to drive slower in a dose-dependent manner, while alcohol caused drivers to drive significantly faster than in 'control' conditions.'"

Previous reviews assessing the crash culpability risk of drivers under the influence of cannabis have reported a positive association between recent marijuana exposure (as typically measured by the presence of active THC in the driver's blood) and a gradually increased, dose-dependent risk of vehicle accident. However, these studies have consistently found that this elevated risk is below the risk presented by drivers who have consumed legal quantities of alcohol. By contrast, studies have also reported that drivers engaged in the simultaneous use of both cannabis and alcohol can increase their risk of accident compared to the consumption of either substance alone.





NORML's white paper assessing the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills, "Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review," is available online at: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459.
Source: norml.org

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php/latest-news/automotive/16666-marijuana-smoking-associated-with-minimal-changes-in-driving-performance-study-finds-







Scientists have actually known this since 1974, when the feds shut down a study at the University of Virginia when it showed conclusively that cannabinoids kill cancer.

Here are other studies for those who are interested:

Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php

Cannabinoids Inhibit Glioma Cell Invasion by Down-regulating Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 Expression
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/68/6/1945.abs...

Briefing: Cannabis compounds fight prostate cancer
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17636-briefing-ca...

Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Cannabis chemicals tackle tumours
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/661458.stm

[saras]

56. C'mon, someone is fanatical about this. Publish all the HILARIOUSLY BAD anti-pot studies.

Or maybe not - you'd cause a giant anti-science backlash on DU.

The anti-drug movement seems to have inspired more completely fraudulent 'scientific' research than anything this side of the paranormal.

[Politicalboi]

68. We haven't had stoned drivers

In 20 some odd years.

[Romulox]

71. The arguments of Drug Warriors are, without exception, "faith based". Facts don't matter. nt

[B Calm]

75. My own study of thirty years proves the same thing

[leftyladyfrommo]

80. That's too funny. I've been driving even longer than that.

I was always able to drive. I look back now and wonder how smart that was. It's like my physical body took over the driving - I think that ability becomes second nature.

Alcohol is completely different. I never could drive after drinking and wouldn't ever try it now.

[Fuzz]

78. I want to be heard on this because I was once at, going to, with a . . wait. What we talkin' bout?

[sylvi]

82. I don't know about driving skills

but it sure as hell doesn't do much for navigation. I can't tell you how many freeway exits I've missed in the last 37 years because of that shit, especially if there was a good song on the radio.

[immoderate]

83. That's surely a part of it.

I am sometimes driving down a road and totally don't know where I am. I am in perfect control, and aware of all the traffic and signals and intersections -- but for a moment, I wonder where I am.

I think that's what you pay for. :)


--imm