Cannabis almost doubles risk of fatal crashes

[ShiningPlain]

wandjina - you call me a preacher, just for getting mad when y'all ignore new things that i've brought to the table... you say i'm preaching to the converted, yet you've seen me say that i don't think this is "the converted"... YOU say that i'm just barking propaganda, yet I'M the ignorant one?... you say that I don't appear to respect other people's opinions, yet you don't make any mention of your "friends"... you say that maturity isn't just about age, yet you've told me to come back in 5 years... alot of the rest of your post is hypocritical and purely opinoinated... and you think i'm instantly going to completely respect your opinion?

EDIT: ahh, FUCK! i had this other part wrote out, but just lost it then. and god knows how?! anyway, because of that shitty turn of fate, this one is going to be shorter... every view on this subject can be looked at as a reality, but the most important "reality" (or view) is always going to be the one that takes all other views into account. and believe it or not, i have looked at this topic from numerous views. it may not appear so on the forum, but i honestly don't yet have a completely open and shut case on cannabis and driving. all i know is that me and all of my stoner friends are fine when driving high, and that i've not yet read one study which would make me believe otherwise.

this is one of the reasons why i've been asking for some clarity on this study! i really want to know more. i've taken interest in the study, and i've publicly noted the facts of it... all i'm waiting for now is for you guys to publicly note or refute the facts i've posted; which could possibly discredit thes study. and seriouslly, if you want me to believe in this thing, you've got to give me some concrete evidence that its findings are right.

[Qhorakuna tantani]

Firstly, urgh... this is a fucking effort that I'm not gonna tolerate much longer...

I really shouldn't say anything but will, this is pointless as we can all see...

Dood, seriously...

1. I don't think there would be anybody here that is anti-pot... do you?

2. Just because we disagree with things you say, doesn't mean that we completely disagree with everything you stand for.

3. Most of the people here understand that to truly comprehend something, you have to look at it unbiasedly. Which means that you wouldn't read an article once, think "I don't believe that because of my experiences", then try to tell everyone how illogical and full of floors it is by quoting examples that you have not cross referenced at all.

This is what you're doing. You see us evaluating this article without completely disregarding it and that scares you, because then there may be some truth to it! So you react defensively becuase it challenges something that you believe in, something that may, as you see, jepardise our beloved MJ. We aren't completely blind to this, but we realise that just yelling at the study, throwing our own floored and 'quick fix' studies at it will not help our cause. We need to look objectively at the situation and then we can formulate logical and strong arguments. It doesn't mean that we are 'giving up' on MJ, or somehow aiding in her further legal troubles. It means we are doing the opposite.

We are not attacking you. Don't you think that you may be doing something that isn't good and helpful, if you're getting this kind of reaction? Have a read of some of the other posts, read how others post and reply. Try to see why we may have become so frustrated.

If there is yet another childish and frivolous reply by SP after this... I will be joining T in obstaining from replies to SP in this thread, and suggest for the sanity of the rest of us that you guys do as well.

Just as a footnote... I hate opinions becuase they are so heavily based on experiences. I try to completely disregard my own experiences when making first opinions, then model them around my experiences. I look at both sides, how logical the arguments are, how founded they are, which is believed more, look at others experiences and how that shapes their opinions, then decide on what i believe. Then, let my experiences shape that. Just an insight to my chaotic mind

[ShiningPlain]

i'm defensive because cannabis is the most beneficial plant in history, yet also the most attacked and lied about "thing" in history. that aswell as the fact that people such as torsten keep putting this study before my experiences and facts, yet never proving that the study is correct; or that my experiences or facts are incorrect.

EVERYONE, re-read this study... now, do you really believe it proves that cannabis almost doubles the risk of fatal crashes? i don't want to sound cynical or something, but i just honestly, unbiasedly can't see that it proves cannabis doubles the risk of fatal crashes. this is what i've critically taken from it:

- it doesn't say how many (if any) of the people in these fatal crashes died. "i mean i believe some of the people did, but that's not the point."

- it doesn't say if all of the people with thc in them died from their fatal crashes.

- it doesn't say whether the people with thc in them had any other drug (besides alcohol of course) in them.

- it doesn't mention that most of the people that had fatal crashes were cannabis-free.

- it doesn't tell us how much more of a danger there is when the thc levels rise.

- it doesn't note that epidemiological studies are not always trustworthy.

- it doesn't say how long after the crashes the drug tests occurred.

- it doesn't actually say whether the drug tests were blood tests or not.

ah well, at least it gave the percentage of people who had BOTH alcohol and cannabis in them. i give it credit for that. personally, if i was serious about warning people of driving dangers, i would try my best to prove that there was a danger.

[ShiningPlain]

CHEMICALS STAY IN YOUR BODY FROM ONE HOUR TO A LIFETIME.

The length of time any drug (illicit or prescribed) stays in your system will vary. The time depends on on your physiological makeup (e.g., your physical height, weight, your amount of body fat, your age, current state of health, whether or not you exercise mildly - aggressively - not at all.). One should consider whether or not one is currently undergoing any degree of stress (i.e., your "state of mind") at the time you ingest drugs can play a part as well.

Other considerations include your "frequency" of use (1x per day? 3 - 5x per day?), the "quantity" of drug you used each time, and the "length of time" (days? weeks? months?) of your consistent drug-use prior to your drug test.

Even the quality ("potency") of the drug you ingest determines "how long" the drug is detectable in your system when your urine is analyzed (tested) at the lab.

Amount and Frequency of Use: Single, isolated, small doses are generally detectable at a lower boundary. Chronic and long-term use typically result in detection periods near or at the upper boundary.

http://www.alwaystestclean.com/how_long.htm

HOW DRUG TESTS WORK.

Basically there is little difference between a blood drug test, a urine drug test or a saliva drug test. The tests all look for very small concentrations of contaminates, called metabolites, that can be used to determine which specific products have been used.

The body naturally stores metabolites in the fatty cells and fast growing cells in your body. These metabolites leach out into the blood over time and are expelled mostly through the urinary tract. Metabolites stay in the fat for different periods of time causing you to fail a drug test many weeks or months in the future. Your fat content, activity level and your metabolism all have a major impact on how long chemicals can be detected in your system.

Being your hair is a fast growing tissue it also stores metabolites. This is why a hair follicle drug test can detect metabolites for an extended period of time. Trace amounts of drug metabolites become entrapped in the core of the hair as it grows out from the body. These metabolite residues cannot be washed, bleached or flushed out of the hair follicles and are stable over a long period of time. An analysis of the hair fiber will produce an accurate drug history for about 90 - 120 days. It takes approximately 5 days for drugs to show up in a person's hair. As a side note, any hair can be used for a hair follicle test, This means under arm hair or even pubic hair. Shaving your head is not effective. Root Clean will cause you to pass your drug test for up to 8 hours after use.

Companies mostly test for drugs in the urine and not the blood because the urine test is much cheaper with similar accuracy. Saliva drug tests are very cheap and less reliable so its use if somewhat limited. Hair follicle tests are the most accurate and enduring, but are very expensive and usually must be sent out to an independent laboratory for analysis.

http://www.alwaystestclean.com/blood_drug_test.htm

[Amulte]

I think ill abstaine from here but but 1st,

you're a total hypocrite that is full of assumptions.

now that is an assumption

and please stop degrading me by telling me to do things like watch bowling for columbine!

what an odd perception towards people you have. please NEVER watch the movie show if its "degrading" to hear about somthing you may be interested to watch.

you didn't attempt to discredit the facts or anything (jeez, you don't even appear to have noticed them), you just hopped onto the bandwagon of calling me an immature, whining pothead.

there is no point repeating parts of the discussion over and over again. ive read it, just like ive read thousands and they are all inconclusive, so what is the point to discuss it with people like you. also i have voiced my opinion, in fact you agreed with me. remember? just because i havnt qouted the artical to smitherines doesnt mean i didnt read it. you are being argogant ehich is not name calling. also i never got into name calling with you. if anything you apear bit delusional and behave arogant, you need to relax man.

ps - maybe you just don't understand my writing style. i'm not ALWAYS talking to you lot when i go off. alot of the time i'm just talking to the people which LIE about pot for their own gain.

that is totally an attack on all of the people that have LIED about the link between cannabis and psychosis. it's not meant to be an attack on torsten.

and these liers, what exactly do you think they have to gain?

with that out of the way this is my last post in this thread

Edited December 10, 2005 by Amulte

[Torsten]

finally some substance, although sadly most of these were previously answered, so I am not sure that I am not just wasting my time repeating them.

- it doesn't say how many (if any) of the people in these fatal crashes died. "i mean i believe some of the people did, but that's not the point."

At least one person died in each crash. That's what makes it a 'fatal crash'. This could be the guilty driver, the innocent driver or any passenger. The term 'fatal crash' is used here to describe the severity of the accident rather than have any significance as to who died. A similar study could have used 'all serious accidents' and included all drivers involved in accidents where 'someone' was hospitalised. Another study might choose to use dollar terms and test any driver involved in a crash that caused damage over $1000.

- it doesn't say if all of the people with thc in them died from their fatal crashes.

This is an irrelevant point for this study. As stated above, the 'fatal' attribute is used to deliniate the sample, not to specify who is more likely to die.

- it doesn't say whether the people with thc in them had any other drug (besides alcohol of course) in them.

Actually, it does. The study concluded that the number of other drug users was so small that it was statistically insignificant. However, it is a variable they accepted.

- it doesn't mention that most of the people that had fatal crashes were cannabis-free.

You're really not getting this. If drug & alcohol had no effect on drivers then 95% of all drivers in fatal crashes would have to be drug & alcohol free. To understand a causal relationship you have to compare what is normal to what is not normal. 95% straight drivers is normal. The fact that in reality it is much less than 95% means that there are factors that cause this change. Alcohol is the main one identified in the study, Cannabis is the other one. It's basic maths/statistics. If you don't comprehend this pivotal aspect of the study then you should not bother discussing it as the study cannot possibly make sense to you (which it obviously doesn't). I will not discuss this matter beyond this until you can show that you have grasped this concept.

- it doesn't tell us how much more of a danger there is when the thc levels rise.

It actually does. Well, at least between 0 and 5ng/ml. It does not tell us much above this level - but that's not the point. Again, this is very simple maths/statistics and you cannot possibly comprehend this if you haven't comprehended the previous point.

- it doesn't note that epidemiological studies are not always trustworthy.

Holy crap batman! You mean to say that scientific studies aren't 100% accurate all the time?

If you understood anything about science then you would know that studies are just that - studies. They have limitations, shortcomings, and often somewhat misrepresented interpretations and conclusions. That's not what this is about though. This is about the data. And the data has some interesting things to say - if you can understand it. The data of the study is actually quite sounds from what I can see. They use good analysis technicques, good study design, good eliminations of variables, and most impressively they have managed to provide a pretty complete picture of the situation rather than just focussing on a single drug out of context. I am a lot happier with this study than one that recruits 15 stoners by snowball effect and follows them around for a few days while recording subjective data

- it doesn't say how long after the crashes the drug tests occurred.

Yes, it does. Read the paragraph 'Methods'. The law states that a test must be done as soon as practicable. In the vast majority of cases this will be within a couple of hours of the accident. In the case of the fatalities it will be on admission to the hospital. The drug & alcohol values in such studies are always meant to be read as minimums, not as maximums - for obvious reasons.

- it doesn't actually say whether the drug tests were blood tests or not.

Boy oh boy, you better stop smoking, cos it is affecting your short term memory something chronic. You have made the same statement in an earlier post and I rebutted it with a quote from the study. How else do you get a result of "5ng/ml of blood", if it wasn't a blood test?

Read the paragraph "Methods" where it outlines exactly how the tests were taken. Again, why are we arguing if you cannot even read something as simple as the methods section of the study. Or if you have read it, you are obviously too thick to comprehend it or too stoned to remember it.

Again, you are just wasting everyone's time with this.

personally, if i was serious about warning people of driving dangers, i would try my best to prove that there was a danger.

It seems to me that the more important thing would be to publish a study that stoners can actually understand

[ShiningPlain]

spin doctors.

amulte - i assume it's a good assumption then.

you degrade me by always stating the obvious like i'm blind to it, even if i've wrote it myself.

you haven't proved that they're inconclusive facts.

you don't know what the people that lie about it have to gain?! well keeping it illegal of course! keeping people away from the best medicine for mind, body, and soul; and possibly making more money from keeping masses of people wanting materialism instead of enlightenment.

torsten - you're just happy with the mystery because you already have your beliefs. i on the otherhand need solid facts.

okay, now i understand that there were passengers in the cars. great. but guess what, the article didn't mention it!

it doesn't say whether there were users of other drugs in the study...

they failed to say that cannabis and alcohol were the main causes of "fatal crashes". i think speeding and tiredness would be the main causes of fatal crashes. and what are you saying, that the people that died with low-levels of thc in them don't have any excuses, but the straight people do? if so, what are all of them? it can't be too many things right? "i didn't want to run over the cat in the road."... "i wasn't looking."... etc.

it doesn't tell us exactly, and that's what i'm talking about. it doesn't tell us how much more people were killed from the higher doses, and how much more damage was done to their cars than the others etc.

it shouldn't be claiming that cannabis almost doubles the risk of fatal crashes then should it. and it appears that you're forgetting the tests that had thousands of members and were totally objective.

what paragraph that says methods?? haven't i read the complete article or something? all they have at the link is the exact same thing you posted.

i don't see it saying at all there were blood tests. all i see it saying is that there was a "blood concentration of cannabis". this can be picked up with urine tests, you see?

it seems more important to publish a study that straight people can understand. and i haven't smoked any cannabis for 2 months! it isn't my fault that i have naturally shit short-term memory. i'm gonna take a memory course if that makes you feel better. i don't see why you should be so concerned though, because the only thing i forgot was that there were passengers in the cars. anyway, i think we're just trying to prove different points.

[ShiningPlain]

oh well now i've finally bloody seen the full study!

Limitations of the study

It was not possible to perform an adjusted analysis of the effects

of amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates, mainly because of the

small number of drivers positive for these substances. This highlight,

however, that these drugs are not a major issue in France at

the moment (2003). Psychoactive medical drugs were only

sought in the case of positive blood testing. No further study of

this confounding effect was possible.

good.

Methods

Study population and drug detection process

We included all fatal crashes resulting in immediate death

(including pedestrian fatalities) in the study. All the drivers

involved were taken as soon as possible to the hospital, under the

control of the police, for compulsory urine testing to detect four

major drug families (cannabis, amphetamines, opiates, and

cocaine). If the test was positive or impossible a blood sample was

taken. This information was associated with the blood alcohol

concentration in the police reports.

These reports provided 10 748 drivers who had had full tests

for drugs and alcohol. We considered urinary screening for

drugs as positive above a concentration of 1000 ng/ml of urine

for amphetamines, 300 ng/ml for cocaine and opiates, and 50

ng/ml of acid tetrahydrocannabinol for cannabis.We considered

blood tests for drugs (using gas chromatography-mass

spectrometry) positive above a concentration of 50 ng/ml for

amphetamines and cocaine, 20 ng/ml for opiates, and 1 ng/ml

of 9 tetrahydrocannabinol for cannabis. We considered drivers

negative if their urine tests were negative or their blood concentrations

below these thresholds. However, during the analyses of

dose and effect, we no longer considered non-null below threshold

concentrations as “negative.”

not so good.

The particular problem with cannabis is that it stays in a person's system for up to 30 hours but its effects wear off within a few hours.

http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6717.shtml

[Torsten]

oh well now i've finally bloody seen the full study!

Geez you're dumb! The link was posted twice and was referred to at least 6 times in this thread.

Most of the things you state in your previous post were previously answered. I couldn't be bothered with this anymore.

[ShiningPlain]

well thanks master civil. i'm really glad that you took the time to make that very illustrated reply. and no they weren't... those were different questions. and if the full study was so referred, how come i didn't see you referring it? could it be that all you ever told me to do was re-read the study?!

[Torsten]

every time you post you just make yourself look less competent.

You really need to read and understand the whole paper. There is a link provided above.

If you can't tell the difference between a newspaper clipping and a study then what's the point of arguing about this. If it has taken you two days and 3 pages of drivel to actually find the study, it will probably take you several weeks and most of my bandwidth before you comprehend it. So no, I won't be spoonfeeding you any more of it. Re-read the thread and you will find most answer in previous replies posted by those who actually knew what they were talking about. While you're at it you might want to delete some of your waste of space posts, now that you are on the same page as the rest of us.

I am beginning to think that pot might indeed make YOU a better driver - if your navigation of this study is anything to go by

[ShiningPlain]

good job on proving me wrong about the study there.

[apothecary]

you don't know what the people that lie about it have to gain?! well keeping it illegal of course! keeping people away from the best medicine for mind, body, and soul; and possibly making more money from keeping masses of people wanting materialism instead of enlightenment.

Uh-huh. The French Transport Research Department is out to keep people away from cannabis, and profiting from it too!

The bastards.

[ShiningPlain]

you never know. and i wasn't talking about them anyway.

[apothecary]

Then who? The boogeyman?

[ShiningPlain]

 

happy now?

 

[apothecary]

-_-

Answer the question, I hold you to the same complaint you held Torsten.

[faustus]

torsten - you're just happy with the mystery because you already have your beliefs. i on the otherhand need solid facts.

like the fact that driving whilst stoned is safe because you haven't had a crash?

 

they failed to say that cannabis and alcohol were the main causes of "fatal crashes". i think speeding and tiredness would be the main causes of fatal crashes. and what are you saying, that the people that died with low-levels of thc in them don't have any excuses, but the straight people do?

i doubt i'll explain this well, but the assumption (or more accurately, hope) is that such "excuses" are randomly distributed across all groups. e.g. speeding is obviously a factor in fatal crashes, but if this variable equally accounts for fatal crashes in all groups, then the effect is cancelled out: the difference in fatal crashes between two groups (for instance, driving straight vs stoned) can be accounted for by the variable of interested, drug usage.

i went through a "marijuana=enlightenment" phase too. ahhh, the good old days ^_^

[mescalito]

SP:

I see a pea trying to push a watermelon.

It seems you are actually proving the herb...it may be time to take a break and seek help.

[botanika]

shining pain - have you ever been in a court of law? Have you ever been involved in high level professional contract deals? have you ever sat in on House of parliament? Watch professionally intelligent people debate and you will notice clever 'enlightened' people look forward to being proved wrong, they look forward to the learning process it offers. They know when they have enough facts to argue, they know when its time to let go, tell a joke and make some friends and they know not to default to a grave digging comment like 'get off my dick'.

If I had been in your situation and started getting attacked by other people on the forum I would be surely asking myself why? Do I really know what Im saying? Is the topic I've chosen to talk about one I can truly argue about? Are they really pised off at me or are they ganging up a bit for a joke? Am I making it easier for them to joke? If I can't understand the facts better can I understand how to communicate with others better.

'If you can't beat em join em' you've spent a lot of time copying and researching the internet, Im sure some of those research skills could come in handy for future topics. We're all here together to have a good time and learn new things about the world and ourselves. Start forming scrums and you'll turn it into a game of rugby.

But I qualify this is only my opinion!

[John_Barleycorn]

As far as these sorts of correlational studies go, this one looks quite reasonable because of all the effort they went to to control statistically for co-factors like alcohol, gender and age. The main slightly suspect aspect is that the so-called control group were people who were actually involved in an accident, but were not considered to be at fault. In other words, the authors don't really know how many "normal" people are driving around doped at any one time. Another thought is that to do transport accident studies properly, it is usual to control for exposure, ie, more kms driven = more probability of an accident, with the caveat that professional drivers are usually quite safe. Lastly, if France is anything like Australia, then the majority of fatalities (pedestrians excluded) occur in rural areas, at speed, typically involving either a head-on or a run off the road. You don't see too many roadside wreaths in suburban 60 km zones. It could be that more dopers are out there in the bush, eg, city yuppies coming back from the ski fields.

[Torsten]

You don't see too many roadside wreaths in suburban 60 km zones.

Most councils won't allow them in built up areas for more than 12 months, while on the open road they are encouraged and even sometimes maintained by RTA staff as a safety reminder.

I don't know the ration of suburban deaths to open road deaths, but would be interested to find out. A quick google did not achieve much.