DUIs: A thread in which Tripler loses his cool . . .

The BBQ Pit
61

Just following up on my previous post; now that I’m not at the whims of a dial-up modem, I’ve got a more secure Internet connection and can provide the verbatims of the New Scientist article. The study in question was done by the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK.

As I mentioned earlier, this stuff is free, but since you have to register to access it I’m not gonna post the entire transcript of the article.

According to the article:

"The unpublished research, seen exclusively by New Scientist, stops well short of condoning driving under the influence of even small amounts of cannabis …

"In the study, cannabis significantly affected only one criterion, known as tracking ability. Volunteers found it more difficult to hold a constant speed and follow the middle of the road accurately while driving around a figure-of-eight loop. The TRL researchers point out in their draft report that this test requires drivers to hold their concentration for a short time, a task which is particularly badly affected by the intoxicating effects of cannabis.

" … cannabis promotes conservative driving, but may cause attention problems and misperceptions of time," says Nicholas Ward, technical adviser to the Immortal project-a three-year European Union trial designed to quantify the crash risk drivers face after taking various drugs and medicines."

In short: Don’t drink and drive. Don’t toke and drive. Just drive.

62

OKay if I understand you correctly you’re saying that because it’s illegal, it must have no medicinal value. Or rather, if it REALLY had medicinal value, it would be legal. Therefore, all the medical marijuna folks are really just stoners trying to put one over on the man.

the fact is that many people are helped with a variety of medical conditions by smoking or eating pot. Witness Oregon and several other states passing medical marijuana laws. Do you really think that whole movement is bunk? It IS a medical tool, but the federal government refuses to change it’s mind on the subject. Why? Excellent question.

Recently the feds raided LEGAL, STATE SANCTIONED medical marijuana operations in california, put them out of business, but didn’t charge anyone with anything because they knew they wouldn’t get a conviction from a california jury. The FDA is illegally harassing hemp seed and hemp oil product importers by using it’s administrative rule privilege to change the law without the consent of congress. There’s obviously an agenda behind their actions, and it’s NOT based on fact or truth. Check out www.drcnet.org for a depressing stream of accounts from the drug war’s front lines.

LOL… I bet you believe them when they say “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help you”. Now who’s being naive?

Sauron- thanks for taking care of the research for me. I often post from work so I don’t really have the time that I’d like to spend on my posts.

63

But we’ve strayed from the OP pretty far… drunk driving is bad, and I don’t do it. 'smatter of fact, I don’t drive when I’m anywhere near the limit.

64

interesting that you’ve neatly avoided admitting that Sauron, while using the data from the ‘cite’ that **you ** mentioned, disproved your assertion that driving after having smoked mj was ‘ok’.

(see, of course your original verbal smack to, I think, diane who suggested that potheads should refrain from driving under the influence of their DOC).

BUt, it’s ok, surely no one else will notice this.

65

Actually, tadc, the title of the OP refers to DUI. This is usually considered to be under the influence of alcohol, but the point I’m making (which is contrary to your assertions) is that it’s not safe to drive under the influence of anything. Even (gasp!) that medicinal marijuana.

And on preview, I see that wring has beaten me to the punch. I’m always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

66

Disproved nothing. Go read the article(with an open mind), draw your own conclusions.

I never asserted that driving after smoking was “GRRRRREAT” (to quote Tony the Tiger). I in fact asserted that it’s NOT a Good Idea. I also asserted that it’s not the big bad evil bogeyman that (some) people seem to think. For some people, it IS ‘ok’. In my personal (non-scientific, obviously) experience, three out of three cops agree with me (as they decided that driving under the influence of mj did not deserve a DUI citation).

Sauron- it’s not safe to drive, period.

67

funny thing, this internet, it allows us to go back in time as it were and review what exactly was claimed.

(It was Byz that had originated the posting about the stoners)

so sequence is:

Byz says :

and you came along and challenged her assertion, thusly

and

and furthermore on this page with

when the apparent reality is

marked impairment to their ability. you want to somehow qualify that it’s ‘lesser’ than a flat out comatose drunk, who gives a shit? It’s still impaired. and, frankly supports directly the statement by byz that caused you to grace us all with your presence and knowledge.

So, you were wrong. And don’t want to admit it.

68

Okay, this is ridiculous. The article YOU cited clearly makes the point that smoking pot impairs a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle properly.

I have no dog in the marijuana-legalization fight. Frankly, whatever people want to do on their own time is cool with me. Drugs, alcohol, chihuahua worship – whatever floats your boat is fine. But when you get on a public road, you’re risking your own life, as well as the lives of others. To introduce something into that equation which significantly affects your ability to drive your car is just idiotic.

Based on the research cited in the New Scientist article, I agree with you that pot doesn’t seem to have the same level of effect on a driver as alcohol. That, though, is beside the point. Pot does have some effect, and based on that, it shouldn’t be consumed before driving.

69

OKay… one more time.

I did not assert that pot doesn’t degrade your driving ability.

I did assert that it degrades your ability to drive LESS than other things that are ‘okay’ to do while driving. I referred to the New Scientist article because I believe(d) it supports my assertion. Rather than taking a 3rd hand account, go READ it and decide for yourself.

Frankly, ‘marked impairment’ were who’s words exactly?

re: being wrong. It’s possible, and it’s happened before. Happy now?

That IS my point.

The same can be said of doing many other things before/during driving, but doing those things won’t land you in the clink. See the double standard?

70

criminey.

look at the quotes I pulled. you fucking challenged some one else’s assertion that pot smoking impaired their ability to drive. you’re weaseling around it now by saying, yea, ok, so it impairs you but not as much as blah blah blah. You made a wrong assertion. yea, you finally admitted it. sort of.

and now you want to get into all the other shit that can negatively impact driving ability.

let’s go down the imaginary list:

  1. Other people in the vehicle - certainly especially children can become a distraction to driving.
    2… combing the hair, putting on makeup etc. sure, you take your eyes off the road and get sidetracked.
  2. making/getting a phone call.
  3. eating/drinking stuff (not intoxicants or mood altering substances).
  4. Being tired.

There’s a couple of things these have in common - 1. all by itself, it’s legal. 2. It’s difficult to register/test for once an accident has happened or a traffic stop has been done (how do you prove 10 mintues later that someone was distracted by the kids?). 3. they’re momentary (for the most part, overtired driver exception), certainly don’t take hours to complete the cycle. 4 (pay attention here), should you commit a traffic violation or cause an accident while doing any of the above, you’ll still get in trouble.

Now, with intoxication, imbibing of mood altering substances, there are similarities:

  1. Seems clear that using these actually impairs the driver, causing them to be more at risk than they are without the substance (comparing apples to apples you see).
  2. THeir effects last for more than a few seconds at a time.
  3. Their presence is measurable and provable.

And, so, when at a traffic stop and /or causing an accident, yeppers, we can demonstrate that some one had caused their own impairment by consuming some mood alterating substance and then chose to drive. We can hold them accountable for making the decision to drive after decreasing their ability to maneuver a vehicle. So, we then hold them accountable for the resulting accident, and since we can demonstrate how they decided to raise their risks of getting into an accident they’ll be accountable for that as well.

Bottom line, comparing one person’s ability while stoned/drunk etc to another person’s ability while sober is not particularly useful data. A more accurate assesment is comparing a person’s ability while drunk vs. that same person’s ability while sober. A bad driver will be a bad driver when drunk. A good driver may be better than the bad driver, even if they’re drunk, however, that doesn’t make it ‘okey’ for the good driver to drive while impaired.

71

tadc, we seem to be having a discussion at cross purposes.

I have no problem saying that pot impairs a driver to a lesser extent than other substances. However, that isn’t what prompted me to post in the first place. It was your assertion that a pot-smoking driver was almost as safe as a sober driver – which isn’t true.

I used the term “marked impairment” in referring to the effect of pot on one aspect of driving a car. I think that’s a fair assessment of the study, in light of this paragraph from the article (bolding mine):

"In the study, cannabis significantly affected only one criterion, known as tracking ability. Volunteers found it more difficult to hold a constant speed and follow the middle of the road accurately while driving around a figure-of-eight loop. The TRL researchers point out in their draft report that this test requires drivers to hold their concentration for a short time, a task which is particularly badly affected by the intoxicating effects of cannabis. "

Note that cannabis “significantly affected” one criterion in the study. Left unsaid is the possibility that it had a minor effect on other criteria in the study. The cumulative effect of these criteria could be quite large. However, since there’s no data to back that up (at least that I saw), there’s no point in debating it.

In my opinion, this is a far cry from saying “The difference between sober driver and experienced stoner was very small.”

And, frankly, I didn’t see anything in the New Scientist article that compared the driving acumen of pot-smokers to the driving acumen of someone who was distracted or tired. If there’s another study that supports this, you’re gonna have to find it yourself. I’m tired of doing your research for you.

72

Bullshit. I’m not going to say it again. I challenged her assumption that pot=alcohol in the impairment department.

False. How do you prove someone’s under the influnce of mj and not just tired/stupid/eye infection/etc?

I think the horse is dead now. Goodnight.

73

Agreed.

In your unsubstantiated opinion.

Like I said, I was working from (several year old) memory. It’s quite possible I’m confusing two studies. My apologies for any confusion. I do, however, continue to maintain my assertion. If I come across the cite, I’ll post it here.

74

No, according to the study cited in the New Scientist article. You cannot honestly argue that a driver who has difficulty maintaining a constant speed and staying in the proper area of the road is “almost as safe” as a driver who doesn’t suffer from the same impairment.

I will reiterate my position: If you want to smoke pot, either for medical or recreational purposes, more power to you. But don’t get behind the wheel of a car after smoking and think that you’re “almost as safe” as a driver who hasn’t smoked pot. The study you cited proved that isn’t the case.

75

** Bullshit back atchya. If you’d be so fucking kind to look above to where I fucking quoted her ** words, she doesnot** claim that pot= alcohol. she states (and it’s been demonstrated,) that for pot heads to claim that they’re ok to drive after smoking all night was incorrect.

That’s why I quoted it for you, so you wouldn’t have to scan back to the first page, and so you couldn’t attempt to fucking weasel out of em again. Guess I underestimated your desire to ignore your wrongful assertions.

RE:

** you can test their urine for presence of mj (which would indicate some level of recent usage), and you can also test their current motor reflexes (which would still be impaired, if the drugs were at fault), and mj also has a very distinctive odor (although that’s a lesser proof - it’s been allowed in court IIRC, as probable cause to do a search)

, oh, I"m fairly certain you’re capable of continuing to assert that you were merely ‘correcting’ some one else’s wrong assertion etc.

witness your response to Sauron by claiming that his statement about impairment was ‘unsubstantiated’.

It’s one thing to waltz in here, make claims about a study that you read some time ago, get the claims themselves wrong, get the name of the publication wrong, admit that you got both these wrong, then when some one else finds the fucking study you brought up, quotes from it, it just boggles the mind that at that point you tell them that **their ** statements are unsubstantiated, while of course, you casually mention, gosh, I may be confusing two different studies.

  1. Your powers of recollection of data has been demonstrated to be, well, a bit ‘impaired’ shall we say?

  2. Your ability to read statements and correctly recall them when they’re still available to you, has been shown to be questionable as well (witness your repeated assertion that Byz claimed that pot=alcohol in impairment).

Amazing, just amazing.

76

Nope. You don’t read things very well . . .

If it affects a known change, it is a medical tool and therefore has some sort of medical value, either good or bad. In simple terms for your stoner ass: A Thompson submachine gun is a known tool, and therefore has some value to some individuals (ie 1920s Gangsters). But they’re illegal too. Do you support driving around with them?

**

Not really an excellent question. It’s illegal because federal and state governments recognize the fact that its abuses will far outweigh its benefits. I don’t remember the last time I heard anyone smoke pot to cure the common cold. . .

Bottom line: In the eyes of the law, pot, beer, crack, etc. is illegal to drive under the influence with. Doesn’t matter which is ‘safer’ and which is ‘more or less legal’. It’s wrong. And so are you.

But you wouldn’t realize that, because apparently, all the same government bodies rather whimsically lumped them together with alcohol. Apparently, you aren’t looking through that cloudy haze clear enough at the big picture.

Tripler
It’s not ‘speculation’ if millions of others think the same way.

77

tadc . You are so not worth my time, really, but you insist on pulling the sleeping dragon’s whiskers. Look you worthless shit, that I’m even wasting keystrokes on you means I don’t want others to take your shit seriously. That’s why I post. I’m not going to argue with you about distracted drivers due to lack of sleep, too much alcohol or too much pot. MY POINT is that YOU, and ME and everyone else on the road, should be driving in the BEST of condition. That means you shouldn’t be high, or crashing or sleepy or with a fucking cell phone pressed to your fucking ear.

Driving a car, at 60-80 mph should really be enough stimulation for even the most ACTIVE mind. I’m sick and tiered of folks who plow into other drivers and use (as a mitigating factor, the fact they were high, drunk or on the cell.) Personally, after all the people I’ve lost, I really, REALLY, don’t give a rolling fuck at a flying doughnut if you are high, drunk of just sleepy…if you are impaired in any way, you sure as shit shouldn’t be driving.

Get it?

No. Look. I brew my own beer. It’s an art, a hobby. I also, FTR, think marijuana should be legalized. (My mom, her struggle with breast cancer, and what helps her nausea) but do I think it’s more okay to be high and drive a car rather than drunk? No. It’s the same damn dif.

Nobody should drive if they are chemically impaired. If you don’t like my POV you can just kiss my butt and call it ice-cream. I know, for a fact, there are enough folks who have been through what I have to back me up.

YOU think you are able to drive while high. So do a million drunks. I’d love for every single one of you to come in here and defend what you do…BTW, would you mind explaining to my five-year-old nephew why he won’t ever met his uncle Ian?

That’s because some fuck-head, who thought he was so awake and aware, after smoking pot, and shooting meth, was okay to drive. He fell asleep, drove 30 feet off the asphalt, and hit and killed my brother. But, no, tell me how getting high is okay when you drive. Really. Maybe, if this shit-head was only high, he wouldn’t have hit and killed my brother. No, really. I’m waiting. Tell me. If it was only pot…

Yeah. If it was only pot.

Tell me, if it were only pot, my brother would still be here with me. Tell me, hon. I’d love to hear it. Turn it around for me. Change it.

Let me start the refrain, that will echo down: You suck so hard MY dick hurts, and I don’t even have one.

Byz

78

This will sound like a deus ex machina, but I swear this actually happened this morning:

On my way in to work, I got behind an older vehicle once I merged onto the interstate. I live near Birmingham, Alabama, and I-65 is one of the main routes into the city for thousands of commuters.

After a moment of being behind this car, I realized something wasn’t right. The car began riding along the shoulder of the road, almost completely off the roadway. Then it would slow down, as if it was pulling over. Then it sped up again, and began to edge into the other lane of the interstate. Then it corrected itself, and drove properly for a minute. No problem, I figured; the driver dropped something, or got distracted, but they got it straightened out now.

Then it happened again. Drift over to the shoulder, drift into the other lane, speed up, slow down. I saw two cars swerve to avoid hitting this car.

After watching this for about three minutes, I knew I should do something. By an incredible coincidence, I had my wife’s cell-phone with me this morning. (I don’t have a cell-phone.) So I called 911 and gave them the color of the car, our location, and the license plate number. They were gonna alert the local and state police.

Once I hit my exit, it occurred to me that the symptoms the driver was exhibiting are the exact same ones described in the study tadc cited – unable to stay in the proper area of the road and/or maintain a constant speed. Was this driver smoking pot? Odds are against it. However, the symptoms were the same. And to claim that driver was “almost as safe” as the other drivers around him/her is beyond ridiculous.

79

wring said:

And I state that if an experienced stoner went to a party, “smoked all night”, waited an hour or two and drove home they would probably be fine (and SAFER than many of the tired falling asleep drivers on the road at that time). If a alcoholic did the same with drink, they would still be stumbling to the car after that hour or two. The reason for this is that the effects of the pot has significantly decreased by that time, while the drunk would probably be just as drunk after the wait because of the delayed absorbsion and slow elimination of the alcohol.

Urine tests would prove nothing but consumption in the last several days or even weeks. Proves nothing about impairment.

Motor reflexes: do you have reason to believe this claim (pot impairs motor reflexes) or is it just “common knowlege”?

Odor: PC to do a search because odor indicates presence of an illegal substance. Doesn’t indicate anything about consumption.

Fuck off.

Tripler:

You’ve GOT to be kidding. No, seriously! The ‘FACT’??? lol I’m seriously laughing at your sad, pathetic excuse for an argument. “abuses far outweigh it’s benefits”??

If you believe that, we’re obviously living on different planets.

Bottom line: some people prefer to make moral and ethical judgements based on fact and experience rather than letting the gummint do all that tough thinking.

Byzantine: Sorry about your lost loved ones. But, how in hell does someone “fall asleep” after shooting meth?? Pot or no, I don’t buy that story. Loss of conciousness for some other reason perhaps, but nobody “falls asleep” after injecting one of the most powerful stimulants known. These people stay up for DAYS.

People shouldn’t drive while sleepy, high, talking on a cellphone or eating butt-flavored ice cream, but they do. Welcome to the real world.

Sauron- what you describe sounds like classic DRUNK DRIVER behavior. But I assume that thought already crossed your mind.

80

ya know little one, you can ‘state’ and ‘claim’ all you care to. The only data that’s been provided dispute your ‘claims’ and ‘statements’.

Since you’ve demonstrated a critical lack of cognative abilities (such as reading comprehension, correct recall of data, ability to analyze data), any ‘statement’ you have to make is only so much ‘white noise’. If, of course, you had data & facts to support your ‘statements’ and ‘claims’, I’d be happy to review it. We’re still waiting. But, frankly, your words alone aren’t worth the bandwidth they’re using.