What's new
By:

Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

Scat said:
Again, just as with opiates, the test would likely only be administered following severe accidents. Speeders, stop sign violators and Nate's will be safe.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say ever test even for accidents unless there's probable cause. I guess maybe if the liabilities are severe.
 
Scat said:
Again, just as with opiates, the test would likely only be administered following severe accidents. Speeders, stop sign violators and Nate's will be safe.
Click to expand...

You know it!

All that being said, I'm all for a law like this if that's the compromise to be made for pot being legal.
 
CONAN said:
That conclusion is what I've been saying all along. Definitely smoked a lot of weed sub-25 didn't you?
Click to expand...

How does it feel to constantly suck at being Christ-like and still finding the moral high-ground to be a pious ***? I'd hope it feels pretty good for your sake.
 
GVC said:
Their final conclusion on page 6 of the study (under the sub-heading Proposal of a Per Se Limit For DUIC) is:



In essence, you're both right, but continue to argue.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think conan understands what this means. He continues to argue that this means the driver is impaired.

I posted about this earlier (may have been in the other thread?) but 0.05% BAC (which is what this study is saying between 7 and 10 ng/ml of marijuana is equal to as far as driving is concerned) is not legally impaired. Utah has the strictest DUI laws in the nation, no state has a lower BAC limit for a DUI. Utah's legal BAC limit is 0.08%. So that is legally impaired, 0.05% is not. And it should be noted that several states have legally impaired limits of 0.10% BAC.

So when this study says that between 7 and 10 ng/ml of marijuana is equal to 0.05% BAC (driving) it is absolutely not saying that you are too impaired to drive. It is comparing it to a legally unimpaired alcohol limit. And not even really close to being legally impaired, but only roughly halfway to the legally impaired alcohol limit.

Conan keeps arguing that 5 ng/ml is what the study deemed as impaired, and that is simply not true.
 
SaltyDawg said:
So when this study says that between 7 and 10 ng/ml of marijuana is equal to 0.05% BAC (driving) it is absolutely not saying that you are too impaired to drive. It is comparing it to a legally unimpaired alcohol limit. And not even really close to being legally impaired, but only roughly halfway to the legally impaired alcohol limit.
Click to expand...

I recall reading recently that a number of states are considering dropping the limit .05% BAC. That would make the definition of driving while impaired consistent whether high on weed or drunk on booze.
 
Scat said:
I recall reading recently that a number of states are considering dropping the limit .05% BAC. That would make the definition of driving while impaired consistent whether high on weed or drunk on booze.
Click to expand...
If any state ever drops it to 0.05%, let alone "a number of states" dropping it there, then you would have a point. But right now the strictest DUI laws in the nation say you are not legally impaired until you hit 0.08% BAC, and several states say you are not legally impaired until you hit 0.10% BAC. This is right now, not possibly someday.

So when that study compares between 7 and 10 ng/ml of marijuana to 0.05% BAC, they are not saying that is or should be considered legally impaired. On the contrary, they are saying those people are legally unimpaired with quite a ways to go before they hit the legally impaired level.
 
GVC said:
That might depend on how much and how frequently you smoke though.
Click to expand...

Which makes it little different than alcohol. Yet, we have standards for blodd-alcohol levels.

GVC said:
I still think roadside sobriety tests- which may have to be tweaked for cannabis- should be a part of any legalized regime. Make sure the tests are caught on video AND, if it's deemed necessary, run some sort of blood/plasma test (if it's legally/economically viable).
Click to expand...

Quite reasonable.
 
What about this from that study:
Using current scientific evidence on cannabis-induced impairment of psychomotor skills and the related accident risk, this paper suggests a range of 7-10 ng/ml THC in the serum for an initial non-zero per se limit. It offers reasonably reliable separation of drivers whose driving is in fact impaired by cannabis from those who are not impaired.
Click to expand...
 
CONAN said:
First pothead I've ever heard of who didn't smoke sub-25. Legit.
Click to expand...

I'd wager most anyone who has done any sort of drug (weed, booze, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, etc.) tried it before 25. That's like part of the human condition.
 
Scat said:
Again, just as with opiates, the test would likely only be administered following severe accidents. Speeders, stop sign violators and Nate's will be safe.
Click to expand...

Oh, and on another note I got a photo radar ticket in the mail today. It was very satisfying to throw it away and not give Denver any money.
 
Nate505 said:
I'd wager most anyone who has done any sort of drug (weed, booze, tobacco, cocaine, heroin, etc.) tried it before 25. That's like part of the human condition.
Click to expand...
That's what everyone with mush for brains says...
 
CONAN said:
What about this from that study:
Click to expand...
That's the initial non-zero per se limit. That is, people show some impairment at that level. The study also states that that level is roughly in line with someone with a BAC of .05% (well below the legal limit).

The study makes no recommendation for an upper limit, unfortunately, which would give an approximation of THC concentration in line with a BAC of .08% (presumably).
 
I think I am going to go home and watch How High, Half Baked, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back tonight....
 
CONAN said:
That's exactly my point. Somewhere to start versus zero. That's where the impairments start showing up.
Click to expand...
That is not where the impairments to the person start affecting the driving though. As the study points out, at that level of THC the subjects drove the same as someone who was not legally impaired under the alcohol laws.

Like I said many times, just because you the person are impaired, it doesn't mean your driving is.
 
Because of this discussion thread I felt compelled to get super stoned and drive. I smoked 2 joints, or about a gram of marijuana and made it safely during a 1.3 hour drive to New Orleans. No babies or kittens were killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top