Tony Stewart runs over another racer...

[MMM_donuts]

No. Getting out of the car did not kill him. His actions after getting out killed him. That gets to state of mind and emotions and that gets to things like diet, intoxication, rest, whether or not he had to ####, simmer anger over his cousin and Stewarts prior run in, all of that.

All circumstantial.

 

[Gilligan]

If you don't think studies conducted and reported by the NHTSA have any bias to them, ...

Where did I say that??? I know a "little bit" about research, analysis and interpretation of results, and the reporting thereof. Almost all such things have some "bias" to them. Back to my previous statement: I have seen plenty of solid research and study results that clearly document that marijuana use results in varying degrees and types of driver impairment. Anecdotally, I've seen people high on pot that were very clearly VERY impaired..

Meanwhile, the debate rages on as to what constitutes "too impaired to drive" .....and I suspect it will for a long time. ;-)

 

[Larry Gude]

All circumstantial.

That's like saying 'all facts'.

We treat 'circumstantial' as though it is a mitigating factor. It's not.

Circumstantial evidence is better than a witness and FAR better than two.

 

[MMDad]

when did they begin to be able to make this determination? I thought the fconventional wisdom was that it was extremely dependant on tolerence and that levels dont really correlate to impairment

It depends on the test. Urine can only measure metabolites, which indicate usage over time. Blood THC levels are seen as a direct indication of level of impairment, but those are controversial.

 

[MMDad]

That smoking pot was a factor in that crash. You CANNOT definitively state that. It is not a fact.

And no you haven't because the research is mixed at best. You may have read reports of studies that draw conclusions based on interpretation but you've never read an accurate, unbiased study that states that weed clearly results in driver impairment.

ASSuming that the coroner understands the difference between THC and THC metabolites, then the statement of significant impairment leads me to believe that the actual THC level was measured. I would also assume that the coroner understands the difference between buzzed and impaired. I tend to agree that being buzzed probably would not have been a factor in this case. But if he was really significantly impaired, it goes beyond the mellow stoner stereotype and can result in paranoia and impaired judgement.

 

[Midnightrider]

It depends on the test. Urine can only measure metabolites, which indicate usage over time. Blood THC levels are seen as a direct indication of level of impairment, but those are controversial.

thats not really the case. Metabolites are measured in urine because those tests are a lot cheaper than GC/MS. However, GC/MS can be used to directly measure THC in urine or blood. A lot of times the metaboloid test is done first and if it shows dirty a GC is done to confirm the results. In any case, there is no gnerally accepted level that indicates impairment or "buzzed" vs "impaired".

 

[MMM_donuts]

Where did I say that??? I know a "little bit" about research, analysis and interpretation of results, and the reporting thereof. Almost all such things have some "bias" to them.

What do you mean "where did I say that?"

I said this is controversial.
You stated studies said X.
I told you that you've never read a completely unbiased study that definitely states either way.
You responded by citing NHTSA studies that support your point.
I told you there's a history of biased research within that organization.

If driver impairment were so directly attributable to weed then the results would be easily replicable in multiple studies and it wouldn't be so controversial.

 

[Gilligan]

What do you mean "where did I say that?"

I said this is controversial.
You stated studies said X.
I told you that you've never read a completely unbiased study that definitely states either way.
You responded by citing NHTSA studies that support your point.
I told you there's a history of biased research within that organization.

If driver impairment were so directly attributable to weed then the results would be easily replicable in multiple studies and it wouldn't be so controversial.

You lost me in the weeds. The fact of impairment is a fact. The degrees and modes of impairment, detection, enforcement,...all still subject to all sorts of research and debate. Not so different than the history of alcohol impairment; the understanding..the definitions..the laws...constantly evolving and changing over many years.

 

[MMM_donuts]

You lost me in the weeds. The fact of impairment is a fact. The degrees and modes of impairment, detection, enforcement,...all still subject to all sorts of research and debate. Not so different than the history of alcohol impairment; the understanding..the definitions..the laws...constantly evolving and changing over many years.

Yeah, I'm not understanding your point either.

We're not talking about alcohol. Alcohol has no relevancy in this conversation. It shouldn't even be brought up.

 

[Gilligan]

Yeah, I'm not understanding your point either.

We're not talking about alcohol. Alcohol has no relevancy in this conversation. It shouldn't even be brought up.

"We" were talking about impaired driving and the quantification/definition thereof. If you are incapable of seeing any parallels between the current "evolution" of definitions and proposed responses for DUI-marijuana and the exact same progression/histgory as it relates to alcohol, that's not something I have any control over.


Here's a question: Most commercial drivers are required to take pee tests; some randomly and some regularly scheduled. I wonder if the auto racing world will ..or ever does already...required that?

 

[MMM_donuts]

"We" were talking about impaired driving and the quantification/definition thereof. If you are incapable of seeing any parallels between the current "evolution" of definitions and proposed responses for DUI-marijuana and the exact same progression/histgory as it relates to alcohol, that's not something I have any control over.

Oh I see that your frustration with my inability to see your point has led to condescension.

Alcohol and marijuana are not comparable. AT ALL. Not even their histories are similar. You shouldn't bring that up here. It's irrelevant and confusing.

 

[Midnightrider]

Oh I see that your frustration with my inability to see your point has led to condescension.

Alcohol and marijuana are not comparable. AT ALL. Not even their histories are similar. You shouldn't bring that up here. It's irrelevant and confusing.

yuo are correct in that they are not comparable from the stand point of testing for impairment. With alocohol there is a nearly linear BAC to impairment correlation. With THC not so much. the time to metabolize the two chemicals is also vastly different. its not nearly as simple as BAC limits

 

[Gilligan]

Oh I see that your frustration with my inability to see your point has led to condescension.

Alcohol and marijuana are not comparable. AT ALL. Not even their histories are similar. You shouldn't bring that up here. It's irrelevant and confusing.

I completely disagree. The historical record on the research and evolution of regulation of each is clear and available to anyone who wants to research it.

The only difference is that one (alcohol) has a much longer history and evolution of restrictions whilst the other, marijuana, was until recently, mostly just illegal altogether. Given the same number of years that it took to develop and refine the driving under the influence of alcohol laws (20?..30?..more?) and procedures we have now....I'm sure marijuana impairment will eventually be defined in a very similar fashion.

 

[Gilligan]

You shouldn't bring that up here. .

LMFAO. You should have included a "wagging finger" emoticon.

 

[Gilligan]

Alcohol and marijuana are not comparable. AT ALL.

I give thanks for that fact every day. Drinking just makes me smarter and better looking. Marijuana?..well...this figure from one of the reports I read really sums it up.

 

[MMM_donuts]

LMFAO. You should have included a "wagging finger" emoticon.

My favorite attitudy character:

 

[Gilligan]

And then there is this one....

 

[MMM_donuts]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz8dsvm0GFo

A classic.

 

[MMM_donuts]

Hey...wait a minute.

 

[MMM_donuts]

...