Well, that settles it. Driving high is never dangerous.
Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Well, that settles it. Driving high is never dangerous.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Ya...I'm definitely not a pothead. Yikes.
GVC
Well-Known Member
****ing Mexicans...
The bigger danger is being in New Orleans.
Yeah, that murder rate is scary.
as far as insults go, that was pretty vanilla.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Again:
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.
I bolded the part you potheads keep ignoring.
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.
I bolded the part you potheads keep ignoring.
GVC
Well-Known Member
No one is ignoring that, dim-witted Jesus nut.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
We might be stuck in a loop here. You don't seem to understand that this is the low level, also referred to as the initial non-zero limit. The study puts that into terms you can understand in several places, here are the excerpts I already posted on that (bolded some parts for you too):
The top of page 4, right column, says:
"In blind ratings, police officers rated drivers with a BAC of 0.08% as more impaired than those who had taken moderate to high doses of cannabis, and driving instructors rated subjects with a BAC of 0.04% as impaired, while those who had consumed a dose equivalent to 7 mg of THC were rated as unimpaired."
Bottom of page 6, left column:
"...suggests that a serum of THC concentration of 12-16 ng/ml may correspond to the same accident risk as a BAC of 0.05% [12]."
I honestly don't think you understand what this means. You continue 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 level. And not even really close to being legally impaired, but only roughly halfway to the legally impaired alcohol limit.
In basic English, this means the person starts to become impaired at this point, but their driving does not. They detected the same amount of impairment as a person who has had half a beer or whatever, but is still legal to drive (AKA legally not impaired).
GVC
Well-Known Member
It doesn't mean that. It only means that their impairment level is not illegal. They're still impaired, and their driving is affected by that impairment, just not to the degree that they're deemed "dangerous" or worthy of prosecution.
Last edited:
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Exactly what I've been saying all along. Salty has been claiming from the beginning that weed doesn't affect your driving and that if it does you can use certain techniques to mitigate it. Oh, but you won't drive anyway cuz you'll be so high you'll just hang on the couch. Yet he uses the tomato tamato post like it is just a question of semantics or some grammatical problem. Laughable.
GVC
Well-Known Member
You wouldn't go to court if you blew a .05. This really isn't that hard to understand. The legal limit is .08%, not .05%.
Edit: Here are Utah's laws: https://www.sentencing.utah.gov/DUI/DUI_BEST_PRACTICES.pdf
Last edited:
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
So what does the 0.08% BAC limit for alcohol mean to you? Is that where the law deems someone to be legally impaired? Or are you saying they are impaired well before that 0.08% limit the law has set, so that limit will not hold up in court? I'm not following you here.
The only thing laughable here is someone who has never smoked weed in his life trying to tell everyone how weed makes you feel, with no evidence whatsoever and all the evidence posted in the thread contradicting his claims.
What GVC said was basically just semantics for what I said. If the law deems them not dangerous and not worthy of prosecution, then for all intents and purposes, their driving is not impaired. Sure you could make an argument that someone with a hangnail is technically impaired and their driving is technically impaired because of it. But I think most people would agree that the increased risk is so minimal that for all intents and purposes that hangnail alone would not impair the driving.
I stand by my claim that when the study compares a THC limit to 0.05% BAC they are saying the person is not impaired. Because legally, the person with a 0.05% BAC is not even close to reaching the limit where they can be prosecuted for being impaired.
Lets eliminate the opinions for a minute and just use facts...
Fact 1: Someone with a 0.05% BAC level is not even close to the level at which they could face prosecution. They are only roughly halfway to the legal limit, which in Utah is 0.08% and several other states have it at 0.10% BAC.
Fact 2: This study says that someone with between 7 and 10 ng/ml of THC will drive similar to someone with a BAC of 0.05%.
Conclusion based on the 2 facts above: This study is saying that between 7 and 10 ng/ml of THC is not enough to make someone drive impaired.
GVC
Well-Known Member
If you're driving with a BAC of .05%, you're probably not swerving all over the road and running people over. Yes, you'll be slower to react to things, but if you get pulled over for some offense not directly linked to driving like an idiot (say, a dead headlight or not signalling on a turn or something), and the officer has cause to administer a breathalizer test (I don't know what the legal standards are), but you only blow a .05, you're not going to face any criminal penalties.
Is this simple enough for you to understand, conan?
Is this simple enough for you to understand, conan?