Well, yes. I would expect that if you categorically rejected the conclusions of a study, you’d say something like, “I categorically reject the conclusions of this study,” and follow up with some logical reasons and so forth.
Answering, “thanks for the cite. I am one of those people who never seemed to suffer any impairment.” implies, to me at any rate, that you’re accepting the conclusions of the study, and implicitly recognizing that there are a class of people that do seem to suffer impairment (since you explicitly place yourself in the opposite class).
So. Do you categorically reject the conclusion of the study that regular marijuana users in our study showed cognitive impairment in the author’s maze task?
After the retraction, how do you address the studies cited by mhendo - the studies that showed THC does impair the ability to perform a task. Do you just ignore them in favor of studies that show no increase in vehicular accidents among marijuana users? If so, then you’ve lost the argument.
No. I accept that it may have “impaired” performance in the maze task (it wouldn’t have impaired ME, but that’s just me).
I do not agree that the “impairment” (if it can even be called that. I’d just call it inexperience with altered cogntition) is significant enough to make driving dangerous.
What you meant was:
“Sometimes marijuana does impair cognition. Also, marijuana does impair the ability to perform tasks. However, the degree of impairment is not enough to make driving dangerous. In fact, I would argue it makes it safer.”
So we are on equal footing there. Next, how is that a joke? You’ve been arguing for pages that “actual empirical data shows that driving stoned does not increase the risk for accidents.” Now referencing the sentence, “The actual empirical data shows that driving stoned does not increase the risk for accidents”, you claim it was a joke. If that’s true your entire position here is a joke. That’s called trolling. Moron.
I guess that’s pretty fair except I would not try to argue that it makes driving safer. I don’t think the data is strong enough to really conclude that. I’m satisfied with just saying it doesn’t statistically increase the risk of accidents.
Can we accept that pot might impair task management when it comes to navigating a maze, or sorting out different coloured plastic objects into little piles, ie. “WTF am I doing this for?” tasks, but for flying a plane, driving a car, or even mountain-biking, it might actually help your concentration?
Dio did say that while driving he had to remind himself at times that he wasn’t in a video game. I can’t say that’s a ringing endorsement for driving while high.
If I’m supposed to believe your anecdotal experience that smoking pot doesn’t affect your driving, why are you supposed to hand-wave away my personal experience? Listen, I know perfectly well that some people drive fine stoned. I’ve been in cars driven by stoned people before. But the point is get over your solipsistic worldview, not everyone reacts to the same drugs the same way. Trust me, you don’t want to get in a car with me when I’m toked up, especially if I’m having a bad panic-attack high (which is why I eventually gave up pot–a quarter of the time it would send me into a racing heart “oh-my-god-I’m gonna-die” panic, with rapid heart beat, depersonalization, and even fainting in extreme cases.) I am not unique in this regard, although it’s not the usual experience for most pot smokers.
Of course not. I’m not sure anyone is saying it is.
I’m willing to entertain the notion that for some people it may help their concentration. There was also a study I read a few years ago that low blood alcohol levels (like in the .03-.04 range) was actually found in one study to improve driving performance, too, for similar reasons.
But I also share the skepticism that it would help all drivers.
As a non drug taker, can somebody please enlighten me on something. If pot doesnt impair driving or cognition in any way, then why do stoners need to compensate for it when driving? What are they slowing down, and driving more carefully for?