- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Spinoff: Washington Sees Fatal Road Crashes Involving Marijuana Double
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:38 am to burdman
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:38 am to burdman
quote:
I agree. I'm all for treating people who are driving high like people who are driving drunk. I'm just skeptical of how they classified people who had THC in their system. Mainly because they don't really give any details of what "recently" means and there's not really a great way to test for it yet.
I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. At this point, as far as I know, about he only way to tell just how impaired someone is who's smoked pot is to administer a field sobriety test which is not exactly that precise. Like I said earlier, I hope science can soon catch up to the legalization issue so that it can be determined when someone is actually impaired and not just positive for THC because they smoked a bowl or ate a brownie two days ago.
I'm 100% in support of responsible adults who want to use marijuana to be legally able to do so just as they can with alcohol. But at the same time, I don't want people stoned out of their mind out on the roads anymore than I want drunks out on the roads. The roads are dangerous enough already.
0
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:39 am to Darth_Vader
Sounds like they need to use Uber and Lyft more
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:40 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I suppose as states adopt legalization there needs to be scientific studies on the effects of driving while under the influence of marijuana. How much is "too much"? How long should one wait to drive after consuming it? What we don't need is knee jerk reactions on either side who either (a) claim there is no risk of driving while under the influence of marijuana or (b) try to use studies such as this one to argue against legalization.
Too lazy to find the link (
) but some news organization did a video with people driving on a closed course at various levels of "highness". It was done to see how how you'd have to be to be truly impaired. It was done with a police officer and a traffic safety expert. The main takeaway I got was that the proposed thc "legal limit" for the field sobriety test was extremely low.
It wasn't until one of the participants got like 4 or 5 times the legal limit that the police officer said he would pull that person over because they were impaired.
Basically, the proposed legal limit for THC in Washington (I think) was the equivalent of setting a .01 or .02 legal limit for BAC.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:42 am to TigerTroll11
quote:
LINK Its all scare tactics. You can't correlate THC levels with impairment
Another reason we need a verifiable test that can determine when and if impairment from marijuana use is a factor in an accident. Just as it's important to know when someone being "stoned" caused an accident, it's also important to be able to tell when it's not.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:42 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Washington Sees Fatal Road Crashes Involving Marijuana Double
That's a lot of lost profit for Taco Bell.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:43 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug
This is almost a non story IMO. Fatal crashes happen all the time. And now it's legal to smoke pot. Yes, more of said crashes will involve pot now.
The real stat you are looking for is if total fatal crashes have increased or not.
Such shitty reporting. Forbes?
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:48 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Basically, the proposed legal limit for THC in Washington (I think) was the equivalent of setting a .01 or .02 legal limit for BAC
But doesn't THC remain in your system far longer than alcohol and long after the effects wear off? If that's the case, how can THC levels be used to determine to what degree someone is impaired?
If I'm understanding what others here have said, all the presence of THC can tell you is that the person consumed it sometime in the past several days, not if they're actually high at that moment, right?
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:49 am to Darth_Vader
It's simple.
Never drive impaired in any form.
Never drive impaired in any form.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:50 am to SEClint
quote:
It's simple.
Never drive impaired in any form.
This is it. There should be no surprise that more accidents occur with legalization. Hate to say it but it is the cost of doing business.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:50 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Spinoff: Washington Sees Fatal Road Crashes Involving Marijuana Double
But how does it compare to alcohol-related accidents?
Obviously, any impaired state is going to hinder your ability to successfully operate a motor vehicle. Still, I believe we all know what remains the primary source of most drug-induced, fatal accidents.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:52 am to SEClint
quote:
It's simple.
Never drive impaired in any form
I agree 100%. Now the issue is how to develop a test that can tell the difference between someone who smoked a bowl last night and someone who smoked one 15 minutes ago.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:52 am to CCTider
quote:
and they left it incredibly vague.
Intentionally. They want casual readers to just jump to the conclusion that it's bad.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:52 am to Darth_Vader
From one of the studies:
From these numbers we see that between 2010 and 2013, 303 drivers involved in fatal crashes had THC in their blood. BUT only 34% had only THC, the other 66% had alcohol or other drugs.
If we assume the same percentages (34%) for the year of 2014, the number of fatal crashes where the driver ONLY had THC in their system rose from 17 drivers in 2013 to 36 drivers in 2014.
Hardly an epidemic, but noteworthy I'd say.
But as other posters have pointed out, it's impossible to say if these drivers were actually high at the time of the crash, or just had it in their system.
quote:
Statewide, 3,031 drivers were involved in fatal crashes in years 2010 – 2014
? Overall, considering both the actual blood toxicology test results and imputed results, an estimated
303 drivers—10.0% of all drivers involved in fatal crashes in Washington between 2010 and 2014—
had detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash
? Of all THC-positive drivers involved in fatal crashes, an estimated 34.0% had neither alcohol nor
other drugs in their blood, 39.0% had detectable alcohol in addition to THC, 16.5% had other drugs
in addition to THC, and 10.5% had had both alcohol and other drugs in addition to THC in their
blood at the time of the crash
? From 2010 through 2013, the estimated number and proportion of drivers involved in fatal crashes
who had a detectable concentration of THC in their blood ranged from a low of 48 (7.9%) to a high
of 53 (8.5%)
o The number and proportion both doubled from 49 (8.3%) in 2013 to 106 (17.0%) in 2014
From these numbers we see that between 2010 and 2013, 303 drivers involved in fatal crashes had THC in their blood. BUT only 34% had only THC, the other 66% had alcohol or other drugs.
If we assume the same percentages (34%) for the year of 2014, the number of fatal crashes where the driver ONLY had THC in their system rose from 17 drivers in 2013 to 36 drivers in 2014.
Hardly an epidemic, but noteworthy I'd say.
But as other posters have pointed out, it's impossible to say if these drivers were actually high at the time of the crash, or just had it in their system.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 10:53 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
right?
Right. THC is stored and metabolized in fat cells. Not through the kidneys. So you don't "wash" it out. You "burn" it off over time. The concentration in your body is completely unrelated to your (perceived) impairment.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:06 am to MSMHater
quote:
Right. THC is stored and metabolized in fat cells. Not through the kidneys. So you don't "wash" it out. You "burn" it off over time. The concentration in your body is completely unrelated to your (perceived) impairment.
That being the case then reading THC levels to determine if someone is impaired cannot work. I'm no expert on the subject but I'd imagine someone smokes a couple of bowls every night after they get home from work would have pretty high THC levels in their system at any given time. So if they are in an accident one morning on the way to work they'd actually be stone cold sober but due to their daily consumption of marijuana they'd, by the THC level standard, appear to be stoned.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:13 am to genro
quote:
Well yeah. When A/C was first introduced there were a lot more accidents involving cars with air conditioning.
People hadn't been using illegal air conditioning since cars were invented before it was legally introduced though. Terrible analogy.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:16 am to chryso
quote:
Are we talking from 1 to 2
More like 6 to 12.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:19 am to Darth_Vader
Amazing, the mental contortions the dopers will undertake to justify and discount this. That's addiction for you, folks. They could rationalize killing their own mother on the highway because they are beholden to the almighty leaf.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:24 am to texashorn
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:28 am to Darth_Vader
quote:I can be exhibit A for this experiment. The effects of my driving under the influence of weed is that my car seems to automatically pull in to Whataburger and chic fil a. How's that for science?
scientific studies on the effects of driving while under the influence of marijuana.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News