I don’t smoke pot, but for some reason the new anti-marijuana commercial is really pissing me off.
If you haven’t seen the commercial, it’s four guys in a car going through a drive through. The commercial shows them going through on different days. On the last day, they don’t have any money and speed away and run over a kid on a bicycle. Then the screen goes black and the letters come up, “Marijuana slows reaction times.”
Obviously driving while stoned will affect your response time, but how many kids are killed on bicycles by sober people, drunk people?
How many traffic fatalities are caused by people under the influence of Marijuana. Are there statistics for that?
I know that it is an illegal drug, so the stats will be artificially low compared to if it was legalized vis-av-vie alchohol.
This subject is actually a little bit more complicated than you might think, owing mostly to the fact that it’s easy to test a person’s blood for THC, but nearly impossible to prove that the person was, indeed, stoned at the time of the accident, rather than having smoked 12 or 24 hours prior to it.
The study I’m about to link to is prefaced by the following statistic:
It goes on to say that :
The study may be on a pro pot site (Mods: just a drug news site - no illegal information), but it’s very well-referenced and everything about it appears to be legitimate. It was a study paid for by the U.S. government, then suppressed when the results weren’t the damning evidence they had hoped for.
It’s really quite an interesting study. Several people were put in various traffic situations and their reactions were measured. In most categories, marijuana presented little-to-no risk. One minor exception was city driving, but the study qualifies their conclusions a bit, as you can see in the following quote:
I should also note that in other studies I’ve seen, inexperienced marijuana users tended to drive terribly. Really, it’s just the nature of the drug. The first several times (the number seems to vary according to the person) one smokes pot, it has far more profound affects on one’s mental state than it does for experienced users.
So really, if you’re an anti-drug group that wants to “prove” pot causes accidents, all you have to do is find a couple dozen people who have never smoked pot but are willing to try. Ignore experienced users. Get the new users wasted, put them behind the wheel, and record the results, and there you go. Proof. :rolleyes:
For the pot smokers sitting there scratching their heads, as they feel unsafe when they’re driving, the linked study points out that:
Now, I’m not telling everybody to go blaze a doobie and take a ride, but from the information I’ve seen, it doesn’t appear to be quite the problem that propagandists make it out to be.
“Now, I’m not telling everybody to go blaze a doobie and take a ride, but from the information I’ve seen, it doesn’t appear to be quite the problem that propagandists make it out to be.”
It never is, hence the phrase “War On Drugs.” It really is a war, with no quarter given to those that choose not to have the government control what they do with their own bodies.
A friend of mine named, uh, Fred smokes pot from time to time. He reports that he’s a bit uneasy about being behind the wheel while intoxicated and does not do it very often. However, once he was driving with his wife and in an apparent effort at counteracting the potentially dangerous effects of the killer weed he stopped the car about 75 feet before a red light. They sat there and she asked what he was doing, and he just said that he wanted to be sure to stop in plenty of time. It does make him quite a bit more cautious, but he says it also makes him aware that he is impaired in some ways, too, and he doesn’t like to be on the road like that. xo CC
My friend also named, uh Fred, smokes a good deal of pot, but never drives high. A little alchol in his system doesn’t seem to impair his driving, but one puff and he gets so paranoid he’s likely to get pulled over for doing 10 under the limit. But, anyway this is GQ so for some info that might actually be useful consult this article:
Funny, those guys named Fred sound like a guy I, uh, know. He once was convinced that he’d actually fallen asleep at the wheel, despite the fact that his girlfriend swore he hadn’t. Needless to say, he doesn’t DWH any more, despite the fact that he probably drives better stoned than cold sober.
I have a friend who smokes a lot, but his name is not Fred, it’s uh, Freddie. He most certainly drives better when he has recently indulged. You see, Freddie has a bit of a lead-foot when sober, but when he drives after partaking he is the epitome of the perfect driver. Under these circumstances, he goes along with the flow of traffic and allows at least five car lengths. He tells me that he does not do this because he’s paranoid, he does this because he’s much more patient and easy-going in that state.
If Freddie had his way, he would prescribe MJ to all hostile drivers and road-ragers. Freddie truly believes that the streets would be safer if all these people were forced to partake before driving.
I like the one where there’s a haze of smoke hovering above a stall in a men’s room. A guy marches in, yanks out the smoker and says, “C’mon…you think you’re so smart put your hands against the wall.” Tagline: “Marijuana can get you busted”.
Well, duh. So can anything that’s illegal! And if you’re dumb enough to not only smoke in a public restroom, but hang around giggling while the smoke gathers in practically a cartoon cloud, then you deserve to get busted. That commercial is just right back to square one: “We say it’s bad, so don’t question our authority.”
Oh, and I finally saw the “Your sister’s hot…Is it loaded?” ad. Bleah.
Those two piss me off as well. What exactly is arresting 14 year-old kids smoking a joint at a concert accomplishing? And the gun ad says more about the danger of keeping a loaded gun than anything else.
I forgot about the gun ad! That angers me as well. I agree with cainxinth. The ad says more about the danger of guns than marijuana.
But where do you go to find out statistics of accidental gun deaths due to pot or DWH accidents etc.
The study posted shows that if you get people high, then force them to drive, they screw up, but it has been my experience that high people hang out in the house and sit around and do nothing while drunk people get up and go.
You are leaving out the date rape pot commercial where the girl gets really stoned and her friend rapes her. Those commercials are just propaganda. I don’t smoke pot but it is annoying the amount of disinformation they imply.
Incubus - I’m not looking to explain my way out of a DWI, I’m looking to undo the reefer maddness propoganda. The ads convey the message that if you smoke marijuana you will, get busted in the bathroom, drive over children, and shoot your friends. I believe that all those things happen to people that are sober.
When it comes time to vote on making marijuana legal, voters may remember the ads and think, “I don’t want any of the things that happened in the commercials to happen, so I’ll vote no.”
I’m looking for statistics that show that my beliefs are fact, I could be way off. Maybe the statistics will show that every child run over by a car was driven by a maniacal pot head. I hope that is not the case, but until I can look at the statistics I won’t know for sure.
Sorry for the rant, but reefer maddness propaganda led to the current state of marijuana being illegal. I don’t want to see it happen again.
Also note that on the bottom of the page on the Idaho link, there are links to other studies with similar results to the one I already quoted, including this University of Toronto study.
Regretfully no stats to provide but a general comment of agreement about the idiocy/hypocracy/just-plain-wrongness of all these ‘Anti-Pot’ propagandas.
The miniscule percentage of Dope vs Alcohol related driving deaths makes this kind of advertising even more galling. It still boggles me that there is still so much blind, slavering Anti-Dope sentiment in the system. Kinda makes you wonder why they resist so much. Is it that the plant in question simply has so many beneficial properties that it would still have negative economic implications for certain corporate fatcats(Hearst certainly knew it would have caused him big trouble)?
Alas for the brain that can believe that Pot is evil and Alcohol is their ‘God given right’!
Freddie is scary. I can buy the argument that smoking small amounts of marijuana may not impair driving skills significantly. The scientific evidence others have given indicates that this may be the case. But I certainly cannot buy the argument that consumption can improve driving skills.
I’m sure that Freddie thinks his driving skills are better. That doesn’t mean that they actually are.
Do you, I’m sorry, I mean, does Freddie have any scientific evidence he can cite which backs up his claim?
