Legal Weed’s Effect on Stoned Driving Remains Hazy

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
Less than two weeks after recreational pot stores opened their doors in Colorado, proponents of legalization appeared to have their first black eye. A 23-year-old named Keith Kilbey, seemingly under the influence of drugs, crashed his car into a state patrol car—which then crashed into another state patrol car. A day after the incident, an official spokesperson said they suspected that the driver had been using marijuana.

A month later, it’s unclear whether Kilbey was actually stoned, and even less clear whether he purchased marijuana at a new pot shop. And a young man poised to be harbinger of all the stoned drivers to come is now a reminder of how long it’s going to be before Colorado and Washington can really tell what impact legal weed is making on their states.

The potential for legal marijuana to yield more impaired drivers on the road has been a talking point throughout the political process in both states—as well as states like Alaska that may soon be voting on legalization—but the reality of that risk and how to assess it are pretty hazy. “It’s generally part of this conversation everywhere,” says Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “It’s not an easy question.”

While alcohol regulations have given officials a starting point for developing some marijuana-related rules, like how far vendors have to be from schools, there’s no simple parallel when it comes to driving. “It’s not like alcohol,” says Emily Wilfong, spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Transportation. “People metabolize it differently. There are different potencies. So there’s really no solution in terms of saying ‘you’re now at the limit.’”

Colorado will start spending $430,000 of federal grant money in March on an awareness campaign driving home the message that driving while high is illegal; the state will put up posters in pot dispensaries and broadcast ads with the tagline, “Drive high, get a DUI.” Wilfong says that the campaign won’t, however, include any advice like how long someone should wait to drive after smoking weed or eating a pot brownie. “I just don’t think there’s enough research that we can say ‘Wait x amount of hours before getting on the road,’” says Wilfong. “I don’t know whether it’s five hours or 10 hours or the next day. We just don’t know.”

Both Colorado and Washington have, technically, settled on limits for how much THC a driver can have in his or her system while behind the wheel: a maximum of five nanograms per milliliter of blood. But there’s no handy chart that translates that scientific gobbledygook into as easy self-assessment. Various studies have tried to suss out how long marijuana remains in the system but reached no single conclusion that could be used as the basis for new DUI laws. Brian Vicente, a lawyer at a Denver firm that deals solely in marijuana-related issues, points out that research on high driving conducted in pre-legalization days often lacks the necessary context, like distinguishing between active THC (which might stay in someone’s blood for a few hours) and metabolized (which can remain for weeks).

cont at
http://nation.time.com/2014/02/11/legal-weeds-effect-on-stoned-driving-remains-hazy/
 
This is a tough one.
While I dont advise or approve of any intoxicated driving Ive had my fair share of heavily blazed driving and ot wasnt even a struggle to handle my self and drive carefully.

This man may have created a large speed bump for legalization lol but im pretty sure research has shown that thc and marijuana have much less effect on driving then alcohol.

Id recommend saving getting high for after you arrived at a destination where you can enjoy your self and relax until clear headed.
 
I am going to throw out my opinion based off of me and when I use to smoke daily (and that included driving). I remember a study (a long time ago that stuck in my memory) that actually said people who were use to pot drove better stoned. There was a "risk aversion" that you don't see when someone is straight or drunk. It brought me into the NOW. Not fishing around the back seat with my hand, not taking stupid chances, not disciplining a kid, etc... I drove more cautiously in the moment, the way pot brings a lot of people who are use to it into the moment. So you see, I am sick of this argument of dangerous stoners driving.

However I still say all driving should be conscientious. Don't read, play violin, make love, or do drugs when you drive. Just pay attention.
 
^Now that is anti marijuana crusader logic!

I like the comment that said something to the effect of "go home anti marijuana crusaders, you're drunk."
 
These fears - valid to an extent - rest on yet to be seen assumptions, namely that more people overall will use MJ and more people will drive high, while not accounting for however many people already drive high. Will there be a net change in this number or will there just be more attention paid to it..??
 
lol people are such pussies

back in the day you could drive with a glass of scotch in your hand and a baby crawling around on the floorboards and nobody would get up in your shit about it
 
I'm fairly certain that the biggest risk associated with driving stoned comes from distraction. IME, cannabis does not adversely affect my response time or my coordination. I've gotten stoned and engaged in potentially dangerous activities like climbing trees and running quickly through the forest and down steep hills. If anything, the nervous energy produced by cannabis made doing these things easier and more fun.

The real trouble, I believe, comes when your attention is drawn to something other than the task at hand. The one and only traffic near-miss I experienced on weed was when I forgot my right of way, prematurely turning left at an intersection when a vehicle was in the opposite lane. I was thinking of something else at the time. Cannabis really has a way of causing your thoughts to go off on tangents :\
 
I'd like some more information from this article. A few bits left me scratching my head

A month later, it’s unclear whether Kilbey was actually stoned, and even less clear whether he purchased marijuana at a new pot shop.

Why is it unclear? There are test kits that can determine how long ago a person smoked, based on metabolites in their saliva, Australian police use them routinely, they can be administered in minutes by any highway patrol car. As for whether he bought the pot from a dispensary seems irrelevant to me, we don't hold liquor stores responsible when drunks crash their cars, why would tis be any different from a legal perspective?

“People metabolize it differently. There are different potencies. So there’s really no solution in terms of saying ‘you’re now at the limit.’”

People metabolise alcohol at different rates too, hell there was a story only a few days ago about research showing that mixing alcohol with sugar-free soda can significantly increase the amount of time that a person registers a positive BAC. I just don't see this as a major sticking point.

In Australia, the rule of thumb is simple, if you saliva still registers certain metabolites then you are unfit to drive. This can vary from person to person and, as such, police recommend not driving for at least five hours after consuming even a small amount to ensure you don't give a positive reading

http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/fact-sheets/the-facts-about-roadside-drug-testing-web-fact-sheet

Seems sensible to me.
 
I see so many people browsing the internet on their phones while driving. Or at least that's what I assume they're doing. Or texting. But its a lot it seems.

As for smoke... That's how we used to do it when that waa the only place we could get away from parents to. Country cruising we would call it. I've also heard "taking a dip" in reference. No wrecks ever happened as a result of being high.
 
Top