As a full supporter of cannabis legalization, I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis.
Notice that I'm focusing on whether or not they are impaired, as opposed to the amount in their bloodstream. The point being that people that use cannabis regularly for medical reasons don't seem to be impaired by it at all, while newer or more occasional users are certainly impaired.
It would be fascinating to see what kind of technologies could be used to achieve this that folks on HN are aware of.
> a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired
I'm not sure if that would work in practice. As mentioned, alcohol makes someone more confident, or more likely to do stupid things. The test should incorporate that.
From another point of view, the alcohol tricks you into thinking your reflexes are still normal, while they are not. And this is the dangerous part, not the fact that your reflexes are somewhat lower (and perhaps comparable to an old lady who is still perfectly capable to drive safely).
Why do cops do that in America anyways? Isn't it much more secure to always use a breathalyzer. It only takes a few minutes and you can drive on.
I'm also quite sure that you could train for soberty tests (if they are as "unusual" as saying the alphabet backwards) when you're drunk so the cops think you're under the legal limit.
Because is you fail a "field sobriety test", it doesn't matter if you fail a breathalyzer, you get arrested for DUI/DWI anyway. So they do the field sobriety test first, then the breathalyzer after, so they have two chances of having a reason to arrest you.
But would their sobriety test hold up in court or what happens when you fail their field test (but pass the other test). If it doesn't hold up in court (because the scientific tests confirmed sobriety), why would they even bother doing both tests?
As far as I know, breathalyzer are far more accurate (less false negatives and positives). This makes me wonder why they would even consider doing the other test. They could catch actual drunk drivers with the time saved and have less work to do (because they don't need to file out paper work for sober drivers).
Deep in my memory banks I have the recollection of a song "Backwards Alphabet", maybe it was on Sesame Street or something, that would allow you to "sing" the alphabet backwards without actually having to think about it; the melody acts as a mnemonic device to go along with the "lyrics" which are just the alphabet backwards.
I wonder how a cop would react if you started singing the alphabet backwards.
Yeah, I've heard that it's supposed to be a gotcha, and the "actual" test is that only drunk people will attempt it, while sober people will, allegedly, refuse to try.
Because refusing to obey a police officer who's considering arresting you is such a sober decision.
Why did you switch to alcohol when the parent was talking cannabis. They are very different drugs with very different physiological and psychological effects.
Right now, there is none. Obviously the measurable amount isn't reliable - but that has been known to general users for years. And so much of it is personal - a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired. A regular smoker, who keeps a slight buzz and gets used to it would have very little effect most times. People around them don't have a clue.
I honestly think the best solution would be to regulate the current traffic laws better - including things such as speed limits, yeilding to pedestrians, keeping distance ahead of you (don't know if that is a law) and other things. Not only is this going to help catch people too impaired to be driving, but folks that are simply not paying attention to the road and trying to multi-task while driving.
Police have been doing field sobriety tests that don't rely on chemical detection for a very, very long time. Examples: walk a straight line, follow the light with your eyes, close your eyes and tell me when 30 seconds have passed, stand on one leg, and so on.
Yes and they are incredibly inaccurate and rely entirely on subjective judgement from the cop's perspective.
Full disclosure: I have been pulled over and arrested for "driving while ability impaired" (essentially the non-alcohol DUI)
When I was going to school in upstate NY, I was pulled over as I drove my friend home. The cop thought we smelled like weed (fair enough, my friend had some on him, I was sober and not holding). So he pulls me out of the car and makes me do a "field sobriety test" which consisted of the following (no joke):
-Standing on one leg for 10 seconds
-Walking in a straight line in the dark while he flashed a light at you like a strobe
-Having to close your eyes and then open them when you "thought" 30 seconds had passed
-Having to recite as much as the alphabet backwards as you can
I'm not a coordinated person in general but I had never been pulled over or issued a traffic ticket before. But they then use this circus act as the basis to say "Hey, time for a blood test because you might be high" and then they take you to a hospital. You can refuse the blood test but you get your license suspended for like a month immediately and I needed to drive to work and school. I hadn't smoked in a bit so I thought I'd be good for the blood test and that I'd be fine in court. Of course, it's fallacious to use the blood sample because it can have trace THC from days ago. So you, like I did, can get slapped with a charge based on the fact that you smoked last weekend and then - how dare you - decided to drive days after the fact.
I had to go to court and then was found guilty based on this erroneous evidence. I had to go to "addiction counseling" where the psych told me I exhibited absolutely no addictive symptoms yet I still had to attend. I got one of my scholarships revoked simply based on the charges against me. I had to pay fines and then sign statements at the end of my "counseling" that I would refrain from drug use and be a productive member of society (it actually was worded like that).
I'm not really sure what the solution is. It will be interesting to see what the accident rates / fatalities from stoned drivers are in the coming years. All I know is the current system is a farce and only used to drive revenue to the state.
Agreed. I've been pulled over as the DD where I know I had a singular beer, six hours before (and I also work in EMS, and am very used to the whole 'two beers' excuse).
"Keep your head straight, follow the pen with your eyes as I move it left and right".
"Based on your eyes twitching when you got to the edge of the field of vision, I would like to breathalyze you".
Oh, look. 0.0. Perhaps my eye response was due to the fact that I was standing near your patrol car, and as I looked that way, my eyes had to adjust from 2am darkness to high intensity, strobing lights.
Unable to book me for DUI, he ticketed me for disobeying a traffic signal (which I later contested and won).
Still had the gall to tell me "You got off lucky tonight".
Do you think legalization will cause usage to increase? Seems to me just about anyone who would use marijuana in the first place is already using it. I don't expect an increase in consumption per capita at all.
Anecdata alert: it increased my usage, and that of my wife. From "none", because didn't need the legal hassles even if the risk was practically non-existent in the Seattle area if you had some sense, to "pretty regular use" now that it's legal in WA. By far the biggest reason for the switch was because the hassle of tracking down weed just wasn't worth the hassle. Now the store is on the way home, takes an extra five minutes to pick some up.
So legal weed is driving us all to be pot heads, right? I mean, look at us: kindly middle age couple who are nice to animals and pay their taxes, and now they're smoking that whacky weed on the weekends! Meh, we're not the ones you needed to worry about in the first place. If it ain't weed, we'd be in Woodinville on Sunday doing wine tastings and driving home after (well, we wouldn't, but I see it every weekend). Our community is much better off if instead my wife and I sit home on a Saturday night smoking a bowl and playing video games.
Are we representative? I have absolutely no idea. But surely we're not the only two people in the entire state of WA who said, after the retail stores opened, "ya know, haven't bought a 1/4 ounce in decades, but I used smoke weed back in the day and I kind of enjoyed it. Now that it's legal, think I'll swing by that new store on the way home tomorrow."
> I used smoke weed back in the day and I kind of enjoyed it.
Based on my observations at one Washington state dispensary, at least half of the customers are in their 60's or 70's. I asked the woman behind the counter about it and she told me that many of them are seeking relief from chronic pain and/or cancer treatments.
A lot. We've had the "big 5" industries fighting against us for decades:
* Pharma (because of the amazing and un-patentable medical applications of it)
* Private Criminal Justice and Police Unions (Marijuana is one of the easiest things to make an arrest on--private prisons profit, probation companies profit, inmate phone services, phone providers, ankle bracelet companies, police equipment companies, etc. all profit. For Police Unions, marijuana-related crimes accounting for a sizable percentage of police stops and arrests, legal weed means less jobs and potentially lower pay. Additionally, Marijuana is easy to identify from a distance due to smell, and gives an officer probable cause to make a stop and search for other illegal activity)
* Paper/Textiles (Hemp!)
* Alcohol (Legal weed potentially means a loss of sales for the only major legal intoxicant.)
* Tobacco (Legal weed means something for people to smoke that isn't a cigarette.)
Some of these industries are shifting. Big Tobacco, for example, seems to be trying to join the party, and has made some moves that indicate a desire to enter the industry. I think Paper and Textiles either will come around or already are, as I think Hemp could be easily incorporated into the existing industry.
But yeah, I believe that Big Pharma is as big of a part of this as police unions and Big Criminal Justice.
It has crossed my mind, given the difficulty my wife had in getting a card for migraines (in summary, docs that she went to said, "no". Try some big pharma pills with terrible side effects instead.)
Though it could very well be an attempt to avoid becoming California, where the doctor next door to the dispensary will write you one up if you complain about your chronic hangnails.
I was talking more about making it as regulated as alcohol and smoking are today, given that the actual side effects are no worse (and in fact might be more preferable).
I'm from Portland and I had smoked when I was younger as most people do, however I stopped around 20. 30 now and I smoke most days due to the legality change in OR.
Also have some friends in Denver who started back up after it became legal.
Yes, I think we will see a mild increase. I even know some people who started smoking once it was legalized in their state (they were very cautious about run-ins with the law because of family history). I've been smoking since I was 17 and smoke pretty much every day still. However I think what is more important is that it's becoming more accepted and legitimized so that there can be worthwhile and meaningful studies done about the drug and the habits of its users, including driving accident statistics.
Yes, let's just acquiesce to the whims of the state. Who cares about personal liberty or science or medicine or pharmacology?
If anything, my experience with the state and it's drug prohibition, has made me want to smoke even more weed. Fuck the hick country cops who made me recite the alphabet backwards. Fuck the school admin who revoked my scholarship. I make six figures and travel the world for my job and for my pleasure and I smoke as much weed as I want.
If I may get personal for a second, weed is the only thing that has helped with my depression and schizophrenia. I had several depressive episodes in my life, from when I was young to my late teens and spent time in a mental facility. However, since I've started smoking habitually I have not had a single episode and feel hundreds of times better than I ever have.
Was it worth all the trouble? Honestly, yes. I learned about what matters in my life and I learned to take responsibility for my choices, which means yes, I am going to keep smoking weed for as long as I want because I'd rather stay out of my depression and focused on living the best, most meaningful life I can despite whatever bylaws are forced on me.
i feel you. I had an accident and called the police. got arrested, jailed and beaten by guards. first they claimed i was drunk (i dont drink). i could not not stand on one leg for 30 seconds. after brethalizer showed 0 they claimed i was on drugs. got jailed for 2 nights. blood test came back negative for everything 40 days later. they retested it and found wellbutrin and xanax in my blood, my prescription meds. xanax i took 17 hours before the accident, and wellbutrin 8 hours. xanax was too low levels to confirm. they are charing me with DUI for wellbutrin now. everything to keep their story going. My reaction is to stop all the medications, i refuse to be blackmailed for my prescription meds, which dont even help me much. Feels good to be free-er. Hopefully never again.
Yeah but who just has $3,000+ dollars sitting around for a competent defense attorney? I make six figures and would have a very hard time doing that. Maybe some take payment plans, but my credit is shot... And don't even pretend that public defenders are worth a shit.
oh yeah of course.. spent $15000 on lawyers already. unfortunately they are part of the eco system and i made a mistake to hire one who charges hourly at first. so he dragged it out. now i got one for a flat rate, and hopefully its done soon.
I'm sorry to hear that. That's just god awful. The pursuit of "justice" in this country can make you really sick to your stomach sometimes. I hope everything turns out well for you, my friend.
Is there any scientific evidence suggesting that marijuana treats depression or schizophrenia in any meaningful way? I don't believe so, which would suggest that you've merely been lucky not to have had additional episodes; for the safety of yourself and others, I would suggest you seek real, professional treatment and medication for your schizophrenia before you hurt yourself or someone else.
One reason there isn't significant scientific evidence is because there are way more hoops to jump through just to do the research, and even then researchers may be punished just for trying to do the research! - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/us/politics/medical-mariju...
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that OP has "just been lucky". There is also no evidence to suggest that OP is a threat to him/herself or anyone else; they simply noted that they had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Also, Bupropion is an anti-depressant, not an anti-psychotic. And Xanax is a strong Benzodiazepine and also not in any way an antipsychotic. So the conditions that OP was treating were basically depression and anxiety, which scientific evidence shows Cannabis has positive impact on both.
Now, this should provide all of the evidence needed to contradict your ridiculousness, but, in case it doesn't, YES, certain constituent compounds of Cannabis DO INDEED treat schizophrenia (and, again, your insinuation that anyone claimed it /did/ treat schizophrenia is a bit illogical for reasons above). See here for more info: https://www.projectcbd.org/schizophrenia
CBD is a potent anti-psychotic and antianxiety/anticonvulsant. Granted, it's present in small relative amounts to THC in most strains, but CBD supplements are available in all of the Medical states. I take them almost daily for anxiety and anti-inflammatory reasons.
Could you clarify what you found ridiculous in my comment? I don't need to present scientific evidence that he's a potential harm to himself or others; anyone who is depressed or schizophrenic is potentially such a threat. The evidence that he's just been lucky is that despite not treating his illnesses with modalities proven to provide treatment, he hasn't had a severe depression or schizophrenic episode. Also, you still haven't provided any peer-reviewed research suggesting that marijuana is useful for treating depression, anxiety or schizophrenia; was that an oversight or is it unavailable? My understanding is it's unavailable, again suggesting that because he's not actually treating his illnesses with medications that can actually be of benefit, he's simply been lucky while smoking pot that he hasn't had any severe issues, like suicidal or homicidal ideation. Clearly you have a pot-slanted viewpoint, but just because you believe in the healing powers of a random plant with thousands of chemicals in it, doesn't mean any one or more of those chemicals is actually supported by scientific evidence as being a treatment for depression, anxiety or schizophrenia as compared to legitimate medications.
I don't know about the science behind it, but as a teenager and young adult I had numerous episodes in and out of mental institutions and was diagnosed by various professionals as bipolar, schizophrenic, or borderline personality disorder. I tried several antidepressants and "mood stabilizers" some of which never worked and some that worked but with side effects I couldn't accept. During this period of my life I was definitely occasionally a danger to myself and others.
About 10 years ago, as an adult never having tried any illicit substances, I started using cannabis and found marked improvement in my mood and focus. Since then, smoking weed every few days, I have had zero "episodes", I am happy most of the time, am in a stable long-term relationship with a new child and am generally a productive member of society.
I have tried to research scientific studies that explain these results but have always found the corpus lacking. I think these interactions definitely deserve more exploration.
Pal, I've gone through the whole rut of "professional" treatment. I've been seeing psychiatrists and psychologists since I was in the third grade. I went to several counselors throughout high school, some of them mandated some of them I found through my own research and references. I spent over two weeks in a serious inpatient facility where they open the door to your room every 10 minutes to make sure you haven't killed yourself yet. I had to be taken away on a stretcher and loaded into an ambulance while my parents looked on, baffled and confused as me. I've been on uppers, downers, SSRIs; I've done CBT and group therapy, I've meditated for hours on end, I've seen shrinks that cost $300/hr and I've spent my fair share talking to the shrink on the other end of the bar. But nothing has helped me as much as I feel weed has. Call it anecdata, but considering that I was having issues every few months or so for years...decades...until I started smoking weed well, I haven't had a problem in almost nine years so call me lucky.
That is true, but like the article stated, there is much more relation and science affirming the connection between BAC and an impaired ability to drive than there is due to pot. And I'm sure that there are plenty of people that simply don't get caught, and more that would otherwise not get caught if it weren't for checkpoints.
If we don't have the science, technology, nor a fair way to test, I'm not sure how making pot-specific laws is going to help do anything other than make people feel like something has been done.
At least with better controls and better general laws, it makes everyone safer. People that can't drive accordingly, regardless of any drug, probably shouldn't be driving at all.
> Right now, there is none. ... a person going out on the weekend and smoking a lot (much like drinking most weekends or occasionally) is going to be really impaired.
I think the article is pretty misleading but the conclusion is clear: "There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.".
The problem is that the legal thresholds for THC are so low that "stone drivers" are not actually stone, making the whole federal study flawed.
Here: "Several states have passed laws attempting to define "marijuana-impaired driving" similarly to drunk driving. Colorado, for instance, sets a blood THC threshold of 5 nanograms per milliliter. But that number tells us next to nothing about whether a person is impaired or fit to drive. "
If you look at the data, "any illegal drug" is also not correlated with more accidents.
> but the conclusion is clear: "There's plenty of evidence showing that marijuana use impairs key driving skills. If you get really stoned and then get behind the wheel, you're asking for trouble.".
While the conclusion is clear, it's also misleading. No one disputes that you can get too stoned to drive, that isn't the issue that matters. What matters is whether those too stoned to drive drive anyway like they do on alcohol. Anecdotally from decades of experience I can say they don't, pot doesn't destroy your ability to judge your state of mind so there's no reason to treat it with special exceptions like we do for alcohol. Most long term smokers drive while high, but not while impaired. High != impaired just as drinking one beer doesn't destroy your ability to drive safely.
5ng/ml is absolutely ridiculous. 5ng/ml is down in the noise of even a very sensitive test, and waaaay under the noise floor for more common EMIT tests. That's a law meant to let a prosecutor throw anyone under the bus when he wants to.
Impairment should be the focus, rather than the amount of any substance in anybody's bloodstream. Why not a general test of perception and reaction time?
How do you figure out what is normal for that person, though? Or what is normal to society? How do we set up a test that is fair to most folks? Can we rely on police training to be able to make accomidations (quickly) for those that are disabled, etc?
It's not per-person. There's ONE standard for driving. If for any reason (weakness, blindness, lack of reflexes, impairment, age, etc) you can't reach that bar, then in reality you can't safely drive and so you shouldn't.
It really doesn't matter the age, ability, or whatever - as long as a person CAN reach the minimum requirements to drive on the road, they should be allowed to chose to do so. I don't see a need to discriminate by any means other than performance.
Is there a standard? What standards body has decided it and where can I see it's tests enumerated?
Or do you mean the quick and dirty 'field sobriety tests' that many police offers use? I'm not aware of those being actual standards or tests so much as quick and dirty tools to justify the effort of /actual/ standards tests (BTW, I recall hearing that you should always demand the blood test over the breath tests).
Yes, many states in the US (and I presume other governments at some level around the world) have BAC level tests that are a legal limit which has a strong scientific correlation to of resulting in impaired driving and decision making.
I think there might be some debate over variance of correlation among different ethnicity and experience level of particular users, but I cannot recall any actual disagreement about the current legal BAC limits being close enough for the general population.
However that is the point being made by the parent article; that while presence of alcohol in someone's blood does have that strong scientific correlation there is as yet no strong scientific correlation for any of the legal limits currently in place.
I could see something like an augmented reality setup for a driver where fake pedestrians wander into the road ahead of you and if you don't slow down in time you are warned / flagged as impaired / ignition shuts down. Passes the specificity test, for sure - which something like a reflex test to turn the ignition switch does not.
The problem is that it's way too invasive for people to sign up for it voluntarily - not to mention you'd cause a bunch of sudden stops for no reason and maybe create more accidents than you prevent.
I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. What is a credible test of impairment that can be administered automatically, remotely, anonymously, and with a high enough degree of accuracy and reliability (mitigation of false positives and false negatives), that we could feel ok about legislating around it?
I'm a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis.
Wow. So you're also a big supporter of the massive, real-time surveillance infrastructure required to make this possible, then.
Don't think for a minute that those devices (which will inevitably be required in all human-driven cars... for as long as humans are allowed to drive cars, that is)
won't be reporting those findings to insurance companies and of course, to one's friendly local police department -- and by extension, all police departments nationwide -- once in place.
I think parent commenter meant a device that can check the impairment of a person's reflexes, physically, when asked. Like a breathalyzer for reflexes.
You're right; somehow I was reflexively thinking that such a device would have to be be mandatory. But the way you phrase it, it's clear that that wasn't what was being proposed.
Yeah, but the poster above us talking about the degree to which someone is stoned, not just true/false. Relying purely on human judgement is not a good idea for something like that. Especially considering all of the abuses police commit already. If all they need to do is judge you're too stoned without any quantifying test, that's not good.
IIRC, in most jurisdictions, that's all they need to do with alcohol to arrest. Blood/breath results are additional evidence which will aid with conviction, since there is an prima facie legal limit as well as a prohibition on driving while impaired do to alcohol regardless of BAC, but most jurisdictions also prohibit driving while impaired with any substance, whether or not that substance is one for which a prima facie limit has been established.
> I'm also a big supporter of a technology that can instantly detect whether someone's reflexes are impaired by cannabis.
We simply don't need that; this presume driving while high is a problem that needs solving and it quite simply isn't. There's no evidence to justify treating pot special like we do alcohol and specifically testing for it.
Notice that I'm focusing on whether or not they are impaired, as opposed to the amount in their bloodstream. The point being that people that use cannabis regularly for medical reasons don't seem to be impaired by it at all, while newer or more occasional users are certainly impaired.
It would be fascinating to see what kind of technologies could be used to achieve this that folks on HN are aware of.