I love scientific research... There are links to the referenced data sets and other studies in the link provided. _____________________________________________________________ mar1juana: Study Finds Minimal Changes in Driving Performance After Smoking http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/635/marijuana_impaired_driving_no_difference_study_finds The head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, is pushing a campaign targeting drugged driving and has singled out mar1juana as a main problem. But if the latest research findings on stoned driving are any indication, the drug czar may want to shift his emphasis if he wants to (as he claims) let policy be driven by evidence. According to clinical trial data published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, subjects tested both before and after smoking mar1juana exhibited virtually identical driving skills in a battery of driving simulator tests. Researchers in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial tested 85 subjects -- 50 men and 35 women -- on simulated driving performance. The subjects had to respond to simulations of various events associated with vehicle crash risk, such as deciding whether to stop or go through a changing traffic light, avoiding a driver entering an intersection illegally, and responding to the presence of emergency vehicles. Subjects were tested sober and again a half hour after having smoked a single medium-potency (2.9% THC) joint or a placebo. The investigators found that the subjects' performance before and after getting stoned was virtually identical. "No differences were found during the baseline driving segment (and the) collision avoidance scenarios," the authors reported. Nor were there any differences between the way men and women responded. Researchers did note one difference. "Participants receiving active mar1juana decreased their speed more so than those receiving placebo cigarettes during (the) distracted section of the drive," they wrote. The authors speculated that the subjects may have slowed down to compensate for perceived impairment. "[N]o other changes in driving performance were found," researchers concluded. Past research on mar1juana use and driving has yielded similar results as well, including a 2008 driving simulator clinical trial conducted in Israel and published in Accident, Analysis, and Prevention. That trial compared the performance of drivers after they had ingested either alcohol or mar1juana. "Average speed was the most sensitive driving performance variable affected by both THC and alcohol but with an opposite effect," the investigators reported. "Smoking THC cigarettes caused drivers to drive slower in a dose-dependent manner, while alcohol caused drivers to drive significantly faster than in 'control' conditions." Something to keep in mind when lawmakers in your state start pushing for zero-tolerance "per se" Driving Under the Influence of Drugs laws that want to label people impaired drivers because of the presence of a few metabolites left over from last week.
http://www.naturalnews.com/028951_America_money_supply.html "Below, I explain each of these six big problems and why they threaten the future of America as we know it. #1: Medicated Drivers This is one of the most widely ignored problems in America today: While drunk drivers are widely condemned and incarcerated for taking the wheel while inebriated, the epidemic of medicated drivers is largely swept under the rug. As much as one-third of all automobile accidents involve medicated drivers, I learned from a police captain in Tucson, Arizona. The aggregate harm caused by medicated drivers is now far worse than the harm caused by drunk drivers. Police rarely test drivers for being under the influence of medication even though many medications cause impaired judgment, lengthened reaction times and a loss of hand-eye coordination. There is currently no national group focused on opposition to medicated drivers, either. This is the big problem on America's roads that no one is talking about (except NaturalNews and a handful of other forward-thinking bloggers). Remember: Popping pills and driving don't mix." But the government and pharma industry will never tell you this, as they reap in giant profits from their monopolized system. I prefer not to drive under the influence of MJ, because I tend to drive 1/2 the speed limit. I guess when you're high you don't feel the need to rush through life, I suppose.
Let's face it, if you get in an accident and you're high, at least your only going four f*(&ing miles an hour! ----Bill Hicks, RIP
I don't doubt there was much difference considering the amount, but that's like doing the same test for alcohol based on a 4-oz glass of 3% wine. I'm not disputing the results, but I would like to see results based on a scale of larger amounts as well.
No, it is not. A single medium potency joint will get you just about as inebriated as most people will get. I don't doubt that someone who has smoked a joint's worth of high-THC pot will be more inebriated, but they were doing the test based on real-world conditions, not seeing if massive amounts of pot would impair driving ability.
My guess would be that they used industrial hemp, which will smoke and smell like mar1juana, but you'd have to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole to get the psychoactive effects.
I keep repeating the same situation of letting my high joint smoking friends drive my own car after hanging out, while I'm in the back of my own car vomiting out all the alcohol I consumed after being too drunk too drive. Being that I've never smoked anything, can only go off my experiences of others around me doing mar1juana. If I'm not that worried about it and I'm a prude and a half, I dont see how people who are even in the drug busting game who HAVE probably smoked are so gung ho against it. I would think people knowing the pharmaceuticals negative effects on driving would have negligible effects on sales and production. People take medication for ailments that don't have anything to do with being behind a wheel. No doubt pharma/gov wouldnt try to conduct their own personal studies, they'd leave it to a third party. And you probably shouldnt trust their own results if they did them. But it would just mean people don't drive while drugged. All they'll do is say fine, I wont drive then. It wouldnt necessarily mean people would stop wanting the drugs.
I'm pretty sure it is common sense and even commonly advertised on both television, medicine bottles, and doctors office, do not operate heavy machinery after ingesting __________.
Yet there are no laws against driving while on prescription drugs, to my knowledge. So this begs the question, "why not?".
It's not wrong, just not valid. Whereas I'll admit there are pot smokers who take several good tokes to be social and go home can drive safely. However, the majority of heavy smokers (believe it or not, I know quite a few) get so blitzed they wouldn't know a car from a water buffalo. Some drive fast because they have no inhibitions and some drive slow because they are afraid of getting pulled over. Like alcohol, pot has different effects on different people. That's why earlier I stated I would like to see impairment results for usage based on increasingly larger doses.
Based on your conjecture, which flies in the face of the scientific study that they performed.Forgive me if I believe science over your opinion and anecdotes. The "heavy smokers" you know aren't at issue here. The issue here is the fact that a scientific study has shown that pot smokers do not pose the kind of risks on the road that many believe they do. I fully believe that it is possible for someone to "get so blitzed" that they shouldn't drive, but that isn't at issue here. You are trying to call the results of a scientific study "not valid" based on your anecdotal evidence of heavy smokers you know. I would love to see those kinds of studies as well. Join me in calling for an end to prohibition so that we can study the actual effects of mar1juana impairment in a scientific way so that we can overcome the prejudices and anecdotal evidence that have apparently formed your opinion.
They concentrate more because of higher perceived risks. Legalizing mar1juana would reduce those perceived risks, so I don't agree with using this as a case to do so.
There are much more compelling reasons to regulate the use of currently illegal drugs, this is simply proof that drivers who smoke pose relatively little risk on the road. Those who do (the anecdotal examples provided by thumbs) will still have DUI laws to face, so the "perceived risk" is still just as present as if mar1juana use is prohibited. Can you give me so much as a single logical reason that mar1juana should be illegal?
Besides, there were absolutely no perceived risks on the test track where they did the test, so your argument here just doesn't hold any water.
