Pot-smokers may take more risks on the road

trainwreckmolly

trainwreckmolly

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
4,890
Location
Virginia Beach
Pot-smokers may take more risks on the road
By Reuters
Thu, Mar 26 2009
http://health.yahoo.com/news/reuters/us_pot_road.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Young men who are impulsive thrill-seekers are more likely to admit to driving while high on marijuana, Canadian researchers report.

Men who drove under the influence of cannabis were also more likely to report certain risky driving behaviors, and tend to get in more accidents, Drs. Isabelle Richer and Jacques Bergeron of the University of Montreal say.

Based on the findings, according to Richer and Bergeron, any public health messages intended to discourage people from driving while high "should include an arousing an unconventional format" so they won't be "redundant and boring" for their intended audience.

After alcohol, cannabis is the mind-altering substance most often found in the urine or blood of drivers after a crash, the researchers note in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention. Studies have shown that people's driving skills are impaired within the first hour after smoking pot, they add. And it's also possible, according to Richer and Bergeron, that people who get behind the wheel after smoking marijuana are also by nature more likely to be dangerous drivers.

To investigate, Richer and Bergeron looked at 83 men ranging in age from 17 to 49, of whom 30 admitted to being pot smokers. Among these individuals, 80 percent said they had driven under the influence of marijuana in the past 12 months. Thirty-five percent of all the study participants had been involved in at least one car crash in the past 3 years.

The researchers had the men complete personality tests, and then examined their driving behavior by having them use a driving simulator. During the driving test, a car was positioned in front of the driver that would slow down when the driver was behind it, but speed up when the driver tried to pass. The study participants were also required to complete the driving test under time pressure.

Study participants with high scores on personality tests measuring sensation seeking and impulsivity were more likely to say they had driven under the influence of cannabis in the past year. The pot-smoking drivers were also more likely to report having engaged in risky driving, meaning driving in a careless way that could hurt others but isn't intended to do so; and negative emotional driving, for example, getting angry with other motorists. These men were also more likely to exhibit these behaviors in the simulation tests. There was a slight increased likelihood that the pot smokers would get in crashes, and they were also more likely to admit to drinking and driving.

"Media campaigns promoting traffic safety tend to emphasize rational decision-making approaches involved in driving," the researchers say. But such strategies might not work for young men who drive after smoking marijuana, they add. "It is therefore important to strike a balance between arousing and educational messages."

They conclude: "On-road risky behaviors tend to be inter-correlated, so interventions should focus on a broad range of dangerous behaviors."

SOURCE: Accident Analysis and Prevention, March 2009.
 
Perhaps the reason these so called "impulsive thrill-seekers" partake in risky driving behavior has more to do more with the fact that they are "impulsive thrill-seekers" and less with the fact that they are high.
 
Does it surprise anyone that cannabis use results in bad driving? I can't drive for shit if I'm high.

Though I have smoked low and moderate amounts of JWH-018 and driven my motorcycle without any incident or even hint of impairment.

I suspect most of my inpairment from cannabis smoking was directly related to increased anxiety related to my ability to perform, not my ability to perform itself.
 
Men who drove under the influence of cannabis were also more likely to report certain risky driving behaviors, and tend to get in more accidents,
Click to expand...

i dont know how many times it needs to be said, but im saying it again

CORRELATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSATION

i definitely fell under this category when I drove. I was more likely to do stupid things, and got in quite a few minor accidents as a result. but not while I was high! when I was high, I never got in an accident, consistently followed the speed limit, and was generally more forgiving to other motorists. just goes to show, stats can say anything
 
^^^^ I completely agree. I've luckily never been in an accident that's my fault, but all of the close calls seem to come when I'm not high.
 
Everyone I know who blazes and drives are too paranoid to fuck up,
They'll go like five - ten under the limit and even do ten and two on the wheel the entire time.

When sober they speed and dont drive as "politely" as they should"
 
There's been tests that show drivers who are under the influence of weed are actually more cautious on the road. Ofcourse it's not going to be the same for everyone, but ambient rhapsody hit the nail on the head.
 
all this is saying is foolhardy people are more likely to drive in a dangerous manner when their driving skills are impaired, compared to normal people who will act in a more cautious manner when they're high.
 
I wouldn't want to jump in the bandwagon, but... Did someone really seriously make an article that basically says "thrill seeking people are more likely to do risky things"?
I'm sorry but this is just retarded.
 
i feel like some members of the media are putting out the most ridiculous propaganda right now to combat all of the pro marijuana talk thats been sweeping the nation lately.
 
I don't drive high anymore. At least not in London - I have done so in other countries.

I take risks on the road when there are no pedestrians or other road users around to be placed in jeopardy - meaning that if I want to drive like a stupid bastard I do so on a quiet road outside towns and cities.

Personal risk is one thing, willfully endangering others is another.
 
Alcohol is far more dangerous due to the fact that it clearly reduces inhibitions and judgment, something which cannot be said for weed. I have to agree with those who say they won't drive or drive like grannies when high. I'm pretty sure that ambient rhapsody hit the mail on the head with this one.

Also, putting stoners in a driving simulator proves dick. If someone who is high is playing what is essentially a videogame, of course they are going to take more risks. Sounds like fun to me.
 
chucky1432 said:
(B)That's you not me, I can drive just fine!!!=D

Oh and just because someone has weed in their system doesn't mean their high!!!!1:|
Click to expand...

Or that they can spell, but I digress...

Actually, that point was addressed where they talked about the "blood concentration" section. There are usable methods of determining intoxication using blood tests, and I'm fairly sure urine tests are available as well. It's done by comparing actual dronabinol to two main metabolites. Dronabinol is found for a fairly short period of time, and only during or perhaps just slightly after, the period of intoxication. After the intoxication the ratios of dronabinol:metabolite A:metabolite B changes, and follows a predictable course.

(B) And as other studies have shown, a statistically important percentage of the population. This is the problem with lay people reading science- and the reason why idiocy like homeopathy and various pseudo-scientific disciplines are able to thrive- many don't seem to understand the difference in the usefulness between scientifically obtained data and anecdote. Your personal experience is irrelevant to the larger society; because one person (who didn't use any scientifically useful observation) may have judged incorrectly, or if they are right, there are bound to be some people for whom no effect is seen. Just like a single dose of morphine-6-gluconuride won't experience in analgesia in some patients in a study, a significant portion will. What significant is depends on the size of the population sampled.

i dont know how many times it needs to be said, but im saying it again

CORRELATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSATION
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you had read the study, you would see that other factors would be controlled for. Judging from the statement, I'd guess you had taken a college sociology course or maybe a course in statistical analysis. I say this because it's one of the first things taught in these courses. If you had gone further, you'd have learned that it's especially applicable to epidemiological research- that is, research derived from huge populations over a long period of time. Like the research that's shown that marijuana smokers are more likely to develop schizophrenia. Because of it's nature, this sort of research is difficult to control for confounding variables and increase the odds of a type one error.

However, if you'd have read the paper (which I am getting a copy of, maybe by saturday) you should have seen that this study was pretty well controlled. I'll know more then, but given what I've seen of this study, I think the next few statements will be true, but I can't say for sure yet. Here goes:

They would have basically had four groups:
1. Non-Risk Takers / Non-Cannabis Smokers
2. Non-Risk Takers / Cannabis Smokers
3. Risk Takers / Non-Cannabis Smokers
4. Risk Takers / Cannabis Smokers

They would have then compared their self-reported results and then their results obtained from the simulator test. I can't think of any confounding factors that aren't controlled for, except for those who also reported drinking and driving. This may be considered in the study as well, but given it's size, I doubt it. Also, guessing from the way the information is presented, it seems most likely that the Non-Risk Taking-Cannabis Smoking group did not show a statistically important increase in risk-taking while driving. This would go to support the claims here that others feel their driving was as good (or better).

They compared group 3 to group 4 and found that there was more risk taking in group 4. (This seems to be the entire point of the article- that risk-taking cannabis smokers have even higher rates of risk taking than the rest- it wouldn't be very interesting or newsworthy had they found that cannabis use didn't result in a significant increase in risk-taking compared to non-smoking risk takers).

I don't doubt that there are drivers and levels of intoxication that don't increase risk-taking behavior while driving.

Regarding the usefulness of simulator studies:

As a general means of study, I agree that they're probably not all that useful. However, it's the only ethical means of studying driving behavior.

Also, in this study, they would have been comparing the same four groups, so the decreased concern and slackened driving standards are controlled for- they would have looked for a statistically significant increase in risk-taking relative to groups 1-3.
 
Just discourage impulsive thrill-seekers from driving. Cannabis showing up on a drug test doesn't mean you are high at that time. It just means you used it sometime during the last 2 to 4 weeks.
 
Just discourage impulsive thrill-seekers from driving. Cannabis showing up on a drug test doesn't mean you are high at that time. It just means you used it sometime during the last 2 to 4 weeks.
Click to expand...

Again, like I said, that's not entirely true. Blood tests being used today allow for accurate testing of both cannabinoid metabolite levels and dronabinol itself. Dronabinol (THC) itself is not usually present at measurable levels after the point of intoxication. I was just reading on this subject and I forget if it's because dronabinol is metabolized to other long lasting metabolites relatively fast, or if because of high lipophillicity results it in being taken up in fat deposits and then slowly leaked back out over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top