[ShepherdsDog]

Look at almost every post you've made....and as for your 'sources'... I can generate the same shit you do to back up your BS. You've been served your ass so many times by so many people, I think you've actually acquired a taste for it, as evidenced by your latest shit about stoned drivers are better drivers...no one need look further than that littlegemdingleball.
http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/2 ... m+Phuk.pdf

[andyt]

Actually I can add my personal experience to this. I was driving up to Whistler one time in a blizzard, after smoking a couple of hash joints. There were cars off the road to the left of us, and cars off the road to the right of us, but nobody actually on the road itself. I was just motoring along in my old Fairlane with bias ply tires, no problem at about 30mph. I finally had to turn around, because it was freaking me out that nobody seemed to be able to stay on the road except me. I couldn't get over the feeling I was doing something wrong. Went home, smoked a few more numbers and nobody really seemed to notice we weren't in Whistler. Black lights and Hendrix look/sound pretty much the same no matter where you are.

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Look at almost every post you've made....and as for your 'sources'... I can generate the same shit you do to back up your BS.
http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/2 ... m+Phuk.pdf

Why don't you actually produce a post I've made like that? And you've got to be kidding about that bullshit doc - is that what you teach your students. Just ignore actual studies if they contradict your bias? I know it's no fun to be shown up like this, but you can get over it.

[ShepherdsDog]

obviously you're speaking from experience as you keep coming up with more BS everytime you get your nose rubbed in the last session.

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

obviously you're speaking from experience as you keep coming up with more BS everytime you get your nose rubbed in the last session.

Such as?

[ShepherdsDog]

want to start with the immigration, or as you say, 'I doan' want no kullered folk livin' near me, threads? .... raising kids is the same as raising a dog....Lemmy hates poor people....

[andyt]

No, that's you saying that. And Gunnair who wants to keep all the immigrants off the Island. I want immigration to focus on what's best for Canada, and, it seems so does the CPC with all the changes they're making to immigration law. So, feel free to produce an actual quote of mine that's anything near what you just wrote. But just making up bullshit is much easier, isn't it? More fun for you too.

[Hyack]

Damn, isn't it about time you two got a room to kick back in, blow a couple doobs, spliffs whatever or......fuck it, fire up the freaking bong, get totally fucking wasted, then call it a night, kiss and make out.......up, that's it .....up.

[Zipperfish]

No, not buying it. There's plenty of studies indicating that indicate canabis results in less attentiveness and loss of psychomotor skills. Based on my own experience, I'm more inclined to believe those.

I can believ that drivers who are high will more realistically assess risk of driving conditions, due to the induced paranoia of cannabis. (i.e. unlike most drivers, they will actually slow down in driving rain). Perhaps this mitigates other impacts.

I also note that some authorities test for cannabis in motoe vehicle accidents resuling in an injury or fatality, which indicate that using cannabis maks you two-three more times likely to get into a serious accident. Won't they fail to mention is that the test for cannabis doesn't test to see if you are high or not, it tests if you hve ben under the influence of pot some time in the the last three or four weeks.

[Khar]

tl;dr for sandorski: Zipperfish/Guyfawkes are right (although testing is hit or miss).

Modern research is much as Zipperfish suspects -- far more in line with logical expectations of what would happen under a substance that negatively impacts psychomotor skills and attention.

I accessed PubMed for the search terms "marijuana" and "driving," and within the first page, here are the papers I got in return.

---

Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use.
Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M, Drummer OH.
Source
Experimental Psychopharmacology Unit, Department of Neurocognition, Faculty of Psychology, Maastricht University

This is a well established journal publication, and the very first line of the abstract is... "The role of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in driver impairment and motor vehicle crashes has traditionally been established in experimental and epidemiological studies." The paper describes significant levels of driving issues among users, regardless of frequency of use. Higher amount of accidents and higher degrees of fault for accidents are recorded. There are even levels at which you are equally likely to cause damage as you would under the influence of alcohol (300 microg/kg THC). Much like alcohol, past use does not impact driving significantly, but recent use (as in, under the influence) does to a significant degree.

Medicinal THC (dronabinol) impairs on-the-road driving performance of occasional and heavy cannabis users but is not detected in Standardized Field Sobriety Tests.
Bosker WM, Kuypers KP, Theunissen EL, Surinx A, Blankespoor RJ, Skopp G, Jeffery WK, Walls HC, van Leeuwen CJ, Ramaekers JG.
Source
Dept Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

This paper corroborates the above findings and finds that those under the influence of pot have a higher incidence of weaving, but the ingestion of the substance is not detectable by clinical tests, as GuyFawkes correctly states.

A placebo-controlled study to assess Standardized Field Sobriety Tests performance during alcohol and cannabis intoxication in heavy cannabis users and accuracy of point of collection testing devices for detecting THC in oral fluid.
Bosker WM, Theunissen EL, Conen S, Kuypers KP, Jeffery WK, Walls HC, Kauert GF, Toennes SW, Moeller MR, Ramaekers JG.
Source
Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands, Wendy.Bosker@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

Further corroboration. Also note that in this case they found a number of tests, such as the one leg stand, showed similar results as alcohol intoxication, indicating jeopardized motor skills.

Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis.
Asbridge M, Hayden JA, Cartwright JL.
Source
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 1V7. mark.asbridge@dal.ca

This meta-analysis nicely summarizes the corroborated information. Looking at numerous studies over the years to ensure the most rigorous are used, this paper confirms increased chances of collision, increased chance of fatal collisions, and an overall increase of driver error.

[Effects of marijuana and amphetamine (and its derivatives on driving performance based on the driving simulator studies].
[Article in Polish]
Drabek M, Andysz A.
Source
Zakład Psychologii Pracy, Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera, Łódź. drabek@imp.lodz.pl

This article makes an interesting indication that increased use can and does lead to increasing chances of collision, corroborating information above that even frequent users are held to the same possibilities. If you are high, you are high. Likewise, this one too notes the depth of research indicating impaired psychomotor and reasoning abilities. It also noted increased recklessness and deficits in cognitive functions. Drivers are not entirely aware of incidents where they may have been driving dangerously. That drive of andyt's may actually have been horrid by normal standards, he was just too stoned to figure that out.

Impairment based legislative limits for driving under the influence of non-alcohol drugs in Norway.
Vindenes V, Jordbru D, Knapskog AB, Kvan E, Mathisrud G, Slørdal L, Mørland J.
Source
Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Forensic medicine and Drug Abuse Research, Pb. 4404, Nydalen, N-0403 Oslo, Norway.

As a final note on driving, this is a study from Norway (who found the evidence so overwhelming on this topic they plan to impose legislative limits as of June 2010). This paper was dedicated to finding the level of impairment at which drivers are found to be too dangerous behind the wheel.

Responsibility study: main illicit psychoactive substances among car drivers involved in fatal road crashes.
Gadegbeku B, Amoros E, Laumon B.
Source
(Transport, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Research and Surveillance Unit) Ifsttar, Umrestte, UMR T 9405, Bron, F-69675, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon, F-69003, France; SAM Group : MB Biecheler, P Chapuis, C Filou, K Fouquet, Y Gourlet, JL Martin, E Perez, JF Peytavin, P Van Elslande (INRETS), L Campione, R Driscoll, T Hermitte, T Phalempin, D Villeforceix (CEESAR), JY Forêt-Bruno, Y Page (LAB PSA Peugeot-Citroën/Renault), F Facy, M Rabaud (INSERM), H Martineau (OFDT) and C Got.

At this point, it should be of little surprise that cannabis was discovered to have a significant amount of fatal road accidents behind it where the driver was under the influence of pot.

---

Andyt, your two links come from the following websites:

- A pot-activist website with defined aims to legalize the substance run by users, a clearly biased source.
- A man who makes a living speaking about legalizing pot, and hence has a clear conflict of interest.

No paper in that database showed that pot driving was safe. None. These papers all cited dozens of others showing similar results in various other ways or situations over the course of the last two decades of writing. Most others which showed up were related papers in regards to the impact of pot on behavior and capabilities showing decreased ability and deviated behavior overall. Long story short, you're links once again fail against established and recent science on the topic.

Indeed, your links all come from or describe the works created by Chesher et al. Your second quote talking about some British scientists... is actually Chesher et al too. You used them twice without noticing. It did not surprise me at all that I could not find his works listed in PubMed, MedLine, EBSCO or any other major and relevant medical database, for the very reason that it was not published in an acceptable medium that meets review standards. The papers described are in "journals" aimed to promote the relevancy of pot research in general and specifically it's viability for a variety of uses. Unfortunately, the paper lacks... impact. Largely due to it's questionable acceptance policies and political backing. Instead of just showing research, the journal has dedicated aims.

Reading the papers basically reads like this; it's not as BAD as alcohol. Clearly it is fine as a result. In reviewing the work of valid scientists showing statistically significant differences from the norm for people NOT drugged up, the papers tend to make use of the term "only." So an extra couple dozen of people got killed in this sample. Who cares? It's ONLY a few extra people. Alcohol kills tons more. We'll just ignore the frequency of use of alcohol among the general population to make the amount from pot seem smaller. Screw using basic statistical techniques and get me an abacus!

Indeed, the amount of citations he used within his paper (next to none) demonstrate that it was a rhetorical activist paper with no real basis in science. There is a reason you will find his papers only by going to pro-pot websites -- they are the only ones who are willing to overlook the CLEAR problems with that paper.

As a final note, here is an example of where your sources have not stood up to scrutiny in the past, since you did ask for one.

[Zipperfish]

Not to be argumentative, but again, I do not trust studis that measure for THC metabolites after a crash. They will overestimate the relationship between pot and driving, because the metabolites of THC or lipophilic and stay in the system for days, weeks, even, for heavy useres, months,

I'm also suspicious of meta-analyses, just because I find that the advocacy scientists seem to gravitate towards this approach. No research need be done; just a sttistical analysis of existing studies. And the old saying goes, "torture the data long enough and it will confess to anything."

I don't think pot is harmless, but it's harm is probably overestimated, in my opinion.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

No, that's you saying that. And Gunnair who wants to keep all the immigrants off the Island. I want immigration to focus on what's best for Canada, and, it seems so does the CPC with all the changes they're making to immigration law. So, feel free to produce an actual quote of mine that's anything near what you just wrote. But just making up bullshit is much easier, isn't it? More fun for you too.

Nope, I'm just for keeping the population down on southern Vancouver Island. It's you that stated all them Asians coming in was bad for Vancouver.

Sucks to be shown up like this with facts but I'm sure you'll get over it.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Sounds a bit like, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It was intentional. It's funny that the NRA types don't see that. Not very good Libertarians at all, I'd say.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Sounds a bit like, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It was intentional. It's funny that the NRA types don't see that. Not very good Libertarians at all, I'd say.

So you believe that then?

[CanadianJeff]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

raydan raydan:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Remember, there are no victims with drug use.

Just peace and love.

For the sake of consistency, we have to criminalize alcohol too.

And for the sake of preventing hypocrisy, we have to legalize all drugs. It's just not "fair" otherwise.

First of all on the story itself pot does effect short term memory which is why people IMO should not drive, operate equipment or smoke around kids. This is no better then if she had been drunk or on pills.

To address Ice I think your painting in some very broad strokes. We would for the sake of consistency have to legalize all non addictive natural drugs.

I've noticed you like to leave out the fact that unlike most "harder" (if your unclear what I mean by that I'd be happy to clarify) drugs pot is totally natural and non addictive. I have never seen anyone unable to quit pot cold turkey if they cannot get a hold of it or wish to quit and still function like a perfectly normal human being. Try that stunt with cocaine, meph, Oxycontin, etc and see the results.

There are demonstrable differences between the mental effects of pot and those of many other substances.