US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1646

Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

A new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finds that drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol. And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.

+ Show Spoiler +

The study's findings underscore an important point: that the measurable presence of THC (marijuana's primary active ingredient) in a person's system doesn't correlate with impairment in the same way that blood alcohol concentration does. The NHTSA doesn't mince words: "At the current time, specific drug concentration levels cannot be reliably equated with a specific degree of driver impairment."

There are a whole host of factors why detectable drug presence doesn't indicate impairment the way it does with alcohol. "Most psychoactive drugs are chemically complex molecules, whose absorption, action, and elimination from the body are difficult to predict," the report authors write, "and considerable differences exist between individuals with regard to the rates with which these processes occur. Alcohol, in comparison, is more predictable." In heavy marijuana users, measurable amounts of THC can be detectable in the body days or even weeks after the last use, and long after any psychoactive effects remain.

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. The implication is that these states are locking up people who are perfectly sober.

On February 17 2015 02:21 Simberto wrote:
Obviously not. I don't think you will find anyone to argue against that.

But that article actually brings up another much more interesting problem. Because quite obviously there needs to be some kind of regulation regarding driving under the influence of marihuana (As someone who did consume some marihuana in the past, i can pretty surely attest that it is absolutely possible to reach a level where driving would be a very bad idea), but there also obviously are no reasonable laws regarding that so far. Which makes the thing very tricky to regulate. But there should be regulations that are both fair to people who consumed two days ago, are perfectly fine now, and need to get to work, but still have some residual products in their blood, and prevent people who are so stoned they can no longer stand to drive around and be dangerous to others.

On February 17 2015 02:21 Simberto wrote:
Obviously not. I don't think you will find anyone to argue against that.

But that article actually brings up another much more interesting problem. Because quite obviously there needs to be some kind of regulation regarding driving under the influence of marihuana (As someone who did consume some marihuana in the past, i can pretty surely attest that it is absolutely possible to reach a level where driving would be a very bad idea), but there also obviously are no reasonable laws regarding that so far. Which makes the thing very tricky to regulate. But there should be regulations that are both fair to people who consumed two days ago, are perfectly fine now, and need to get to work, but still have some residual products in their blood, and prevent people who are so stoned they can no longer stand to drive around and be dangerous to others.

These estimates are probably conservative, though, and up to 5,000 or 6,000 fatal crashes each year may be caused by drowsy drivers.

On February 17 2015 02:25 Jormundr wrote:

DWI roadside test and then drug test at the station. They already do this.

On February 17 2015 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


I've pushed for this for years regarding alcohol and people in rural areas (who's tolerance and ability to perform while intoxicated is likely different than someone who just turned 21 having their first night out).

The damn "sobriety test" shouldn't have anything to do with how much of some substance is in someones system.

We should have a 'sobriety test' that tests your ability to do what the hell you are doing. So this being driving, our tests should indicate whether your ability to drive is impaired to a criminal degree. Again this shouldn't have anything to do with the amount of a substance in your system but should be based off of things like reaction time and decision making.

Plenty of people shouldn't be on the road because their driving is impaired without having anything to do with substances. Lack of sleep is a huge one



Source

Who knows how many millions of dollars will be wasted trying to find a way to test cannabis intoxication when the rational solution sits untouched?


The problem being those tests don't tell you anything of use really (concerning cannabis).

On February 17 2015 02:54 Simberto wrote:
I don't think it is easy to design that reliably and quickly tests someones ability to drive a car. And you have another problem that you would than test the absolute ability to drive a car. And while that is reasonable, that is not something we actually currently do at all, and probably not something you can easily convince people of, because being able to drive is a very important part of a lot of peoples lives, and the threat alone of being able to lose that right is very scary for a lot of people. If someone loses an eye, that impairs their ability to drive, but currently that would not have any influence on their drivers license whatsoever. If you want to have objective ability tests of people while driving, that person might suddenly not be able to pass a sobriety check even when sober, because he can not drive good enough anymore.

That solution is a lot more complicated than it appears at first sight, especially considering that the police needs to be able to do this test in a reasonable timeframe, too. You can't have someone do a 30 minute test every time you suspect they are drunk, this is a) inefficient and b) a very good way for the police to legally bully people they don't like, and will thus lead to shitloads of legal problems especially in the US, even if it is not happening.

On February 17 2015 02:54 Simberto wrote:
I don't think it is easy to design that reliably and quickly tests someones ability to drive a car. And you have another problem that you would than test the absolute ability to drive a car. And while that is reasonable, that is not something we actually currently do at all, and probably not something you can easily convince people of, because being able to drive is a very important part of a lot of peoples lives, and the threat alone of being able to lose that right is very scary for a lot of people. If someone loses an eye, that impairs their ability to drive, but currently that would not have any influence on their drivers license whatsoever. If you want to have objective ability tests of people while driving, that person might suddenly not be able to pass a sobriety check even when sober, because he can not drive good enough anymore.

That solution is a lot more complicated than it appears at first sight, especially considering that the police needs to be able to do this test in a reasonable timeframe, too. You can't have someone do a 30 minute test every time you suspect they are drunk, this is a) inefficient and b) a very good way for the police to legally bully people they don't like, and will thus lead to shitloads of legal problems especially in the US, even if it is not happening.

One of the most important requirements for safe driving is good vision. For an unrestricted license, you must have at least 20/40 vision in one eye (even with glasses) and 120 degrees peripheral vision. If you have 20/50, 20/60, or 20/70 vision and 120 degrees peripheral vision, you can still obtain a driver’s license that allows you to drive during the day. If you wear a telescopic lens, special rules may apply

Impaired vision- This was kind of already covered
Reduced reaction times- Test
Reduced concentration and vigilance- Test Idea
Feeling more relaxed and drowsy, which may cause a driver to fall asleep at the wheel- This needs to be addressed separate from substance anyway
Difficulty in understanding sensory information- I think that one is pretty self evident.
Difficulty doing several tasks at once (e.g. keep in the lane and in the right direction, while concentrating on other traffic) Test Idea
Failure to obey road rules- self evident
Over confidence, which may lead to risk taking- not sure about this one.

On February 17 2015 04:14 Simberto wrote:
Yes, but people do not see driving as a privilege, they see it as a right and necessity of life. Most people are so dependant on their cars that it will be very, very hard to convince a majority of people of something that might take that away from them.

It will also be viewed as unfair, as older people have slower reaction times, and will thus be more likely to fail the tests, but might not necessarily drive less save than a 20 year old (statistics say they probably drive safer)

And all of those tests have the problem that they need to be able to be done at the side of the road. It is easy and quick to get someone to breath into something on the side of the road, and not very dependant on weather or light situations at that place.

BUt generally speaking, if done correctly a test that simply objectively checks how good you are at driving safely would be better than one that checks how much of what is inside your body. I just don't think it will be easy to design one that is fast, accurate, and can be done at least superficially at the side of the road. And then to convince people that that is actually not an evil plan by the government to take away their freedoms.

U.S. officials suspect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized leaking details of U.S. nuclear negotiations with Iran to Israeli journalists, according to The Washington Post's David Ignatius.

Concerns that Israeli officials had leaked key details about those negotiations, including that the U.S. offered to let Iran enrich uranium with "6,500 or more centrifuges as part of a final deal," has prompted the U.S. to limit the amount of sensitive information it exchanges with Israel about the Iran nuclear negotiations, Ignatius reported.

White House spokesman Alistair Baskey, Ignatius noted, denied a report on Sunday by Israel's Channel 2 news that the Obama administration had completely cut communications with Israel on the Iranian talks.

White House officials suggested that those reports were actually misleading, as centrifuge numbers in the negotiations are part of a larger package that also includes Iran's nuclear stockpile and what type of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to operate, according to Ignatius.

A CSX train hauling crude oil has derailed in West Virginia, with at least 14 cars bursting into flames and two nearby towns evacuated, local media reported on Monday.

At least one of the tank cars has entered the Kanawha River, and one car ran into a house before bursting into flames, local newspaper The Charleston Gazette reported, citing Lawrence Messina, communications director for the state Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety.

The nearby towns of Adena Village and Boomer Bottom were being evacuated after the incident, which occurred at 1:30 p.m., local television news channel WOWK reported. There were no initial reports on injuries or fatalities.

The U.S. Transportation Department is weighing tougher safety regulations for rail shipments of crude, which can ignite and result in huge fireballs.

On February 17 2015 06:01 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about if you want the keystone pipeline or not is that the environmental question doesn't factor into the debate at all. the oil will flow south to Texas either though the pipeline or more dangerously though rail and other means of freight.

At least with a pipeline you can divert it around population centers and habitat. But instead of protecting the environment tree huggers are blindly stamping their feet and saying no.

On February 17 2015 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:


A lot of people don't have a clue what the enviromental impacts would be one way or the other but there are differences between the options.

The hardcore 'tree huggers' are also consistent in that they aren't any happier about the oil moving by other means either. They'd like to see, at minimum, regulations strengthened.

I don't have strong feelings about Keystone one way or the other. If it was going through my yard or some place I personally cared about I would probably be absolutely against it (unless I got a sweet leasing deal where I got paaaaaid) But if I was the neighbor of the person who was getting a check just because it was on his land but the spill could just as easily mess up my land/water, I'd be livid.

On February 17 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:

Until you realize that a tanker truck is more likely to spill, and if you deny the pipeline they'll be forced to drive tanker trucks by your property.

I'm pretty doubtful about the whole economic pros of the Keystone; I really doubt it'll create that many jobs, and probably 80% or more will be laid off once construction is done. But the pipeline is way more environmentally friendly than any alternatives. Trucks and trains burn lots of fuel to deliver the oil, and are more likely to spill than any pipeline.