Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

DUI Drugs - Maybe Marijuana is bad after all.

Notices
Like Tree63Likes

DUI Drugs - Maybe Marijuana is bad after all.

Old 06-01-2018, 07:04 AM
  #1  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 8,340
Default DUI Drugs - Maybe Marijuana is bad after all.

From: US News
"22.3 percent of fatally injured motorists who were tested for drugs tested positive for marijuana in 2016, a figure that researchers say has "increased substantially" in recent years as states have legalized the drug for recreational or medicinal use, according to a new report.
The finding, in a study released Thursday by the Governors Highway Safety Association, was one of several regarding the growing prevalence of drugs in vehicle fatalities. The report also found that 44 percent of drivers killed in automobile accidents in 2016 who were tested for drugs tested positive for one or more substances – a number that was up 28 percent from 10 years prior. That figure eclipsed the 37.9 percent who were known to have been tested for alcohol and tested positive – a figure that actually fell in the last decade, from 41 percent in 2006" https://www.usnews.com/news/health-c...s-than-alcohol

It is probably higher than the 22.3% & 44% overall national rate in states that have legalized it; and considering far more people use alcohol than marijuana, as more states legalize it, those numbers will only go up.
LI32 is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 07:08 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston North Shore
Posts: 4,864
Default

You can test positive for marijuana long after the effects have left, not so much with alcohol.
Boat Bum is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 07:09 AM
  #3  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Tampa bay
Posts: 1,657
Default

Not to be a D!ck, but unfortunately if you smoked 3 days ago and something happened. You're gonna test positive even if you haven't done anything 2 days prior.
DEBTICATED is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 07:10 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,339
Default

I'm sorry to be direct, but this is fundamentally meaningless.

Testing positive for marijuana says whether you have consumed it in the past 30 days or so. It does not say ANYTHING AT ALL about whether or not you are impaired. There is no available test to determine whether an individual is impaired.

An increase in people testing positive simply means that more people have consumed. Given the increasing legality, this is to be expected.

Please, please, please don't try and correlate or compare a positive test for alcohol with one for marijuana. They tell you entirely different things.
MattGoose is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 07:56 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: NH
Posts: 431
Default

68% of Americans killed in car accidents consumed beef within 10 days of the incident........Just wanted to add to the discussion about useless facts.
DirtyMikeAndTheBoys is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 07:59 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: One bridge south of Clearwater Beach
Posts: 1,031
Default

Other question that challenges the validity of studies like this is, what is the overall percent of people that are tested for drugs? If there are 10 people involved in accidents, but only one of them is tested for drugs, then the results would be skewed to begin with...if all 10 were tested, the results would be more accurate. If a person is apparently impaired and they are first tested for alcohol and the results come back negative and then they are tested for drugs and that test comes back positive, that throws off the results. Someone else could have been tested for alcohol and come back as positive, but also had drugs in their system, but not tested because alcohol came back as positive and they felt no further investigation was necessary. Point is, it's not showing an increase or decrease in drug usage, just an increase in the amount of testing on those thought to be under the influence.

Now, if everyone that was administered an alcohol test was also administered a drug test, then it would be valid and interesting to see how the use of each correlates to the other in terms of increase or decrease, but all must be tested for both...not just a select few Not advocating for or against, just pointing out the flaw in the study/articles statistical gathering.
jj1987, THT Mod 9 and MattGoose like this.
Diverboy is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 07:59 AM
  #7  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 10,145
Default

Originally Posted by MattGoose View Post
I'm sorry to be direct, but this is fundamentally meaningless.

Testing positive for marijuana says whether you have consumed it in the past 30 days or so. It does not say ANYTHING AT ALL about whether or not you are impaired. There is no available test to determine whether an individual is impaired.

An increase in people testing positive simply means that more people have consumed. Given the increasing legality, this is to be expected.

Please, please, please don't try and correlate or compare a positive test for alcohol with one for marijuana. They tell you entirely different things.
The company that can come up with a cost effect, real time test for marijuana intoxication is going to be stupid rich.
RyanL11 and Unga Bunga like this.
autobaun70 is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 08:02 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 642
Default

Yep, about as menaingful as saying that most accidents are caused by people driving automatic transmissions, or who have their radios on.....
jj1987 and MattGoose like this.
tommyjones is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 08:03 AM
  #9  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tampa Florida
Posts: 4,743
Default

Originally Posted by Boat Bum View Post
You can test positive for marijuana long after the effects have left, not so much with alcohol.

this is the problem! no way to know just how impaired they are. no measurable test such as blood alcohol. but chances are the more available/legal it is to use, your going to have an increase in driving while impaired. same with any drug or alcohol, the more available it is, the more likely it will happen! not saying im for or against it. just the obvious of what did they expect?
Rolandt03 is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 08:07 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 697
Default

Originally Posted by autobaun70 View Post
The company that can come up with a cost effect, real time test for marijuana intoxication is going to be stupid rich.
There already is one.

D_Westie is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 09:06 AM
  #11  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 2,595
Default

Just another BS statistic
sharktripper is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 09:11 AM
  #12  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,201
Default

The fact that there is no available, reliable test to determine whether or not a driver is impaired is problematic in and of itself.
north coast is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 09:15 AM
  #13  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: orlando madbeach, fl
Posts: 8,672
Default

Originally Posted by D_Westie View Post
That is effin hilarious!
signmansez is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 09:53 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
gatorbus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Palm Harbor, Fl
Posts: 1,044
Default

This story was brought to you by Anheuser Busch.
Unga Bunga likes this.
gatorbus is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 09:54 AM
  #15  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Holden Beach
Posts: 272
Default

I bet they all drank water too!!!
jj1987 and THT Mod 9 like this.
Heathen86 is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:03 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Eatonville, WA The nearest neighbors are cows
Posts: 179
Default

Huh.... I see a lot of denial in the posts here.

I guess that is why a lot of people smoke pot, because it has no effect on them. right? huh?...
Schmaltz~Herring likes this.
KG7IL is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:23 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Eastport205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brick, NJ
Posts: 3,509
Default

I can speak for both, having done both to extremes many times in my youth. I found pot to "take my mind off the task" more than impair my abilities to drive like alcohol did. I found myself "listening to the music" and not noticing the light had changed where booze would affect my "ability " to drive , aka , swerving , driving to slow or to fast and generally drifting where I shouldn't be.

If I had to choose for my kids? I would choose clean and sober. Driving under the influence of either is not a wise choice, even a few hits or beers.
THT Mod 9, MattGoose and gobuck like this.
Eastport205 is online now  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:27 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: One bridge south of Clearwater Beach
Posts: 1,031
Default

No denial, just pointing out the inaccuracy of the statistics posted........if it had no effect on you, nobody would use it. The lack of good statistical data and inaccurate testing methods are what is being debated. I'm not going to lie, I smoked pot about 3 weeks ago and I had 1 drink last night.....the pot will still show up in my system, but the 1, more recent drink won't....that is the issue with the accuracy of the testing and determining "under the influence".
MattGoose likes this.
Diverboy is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:58 AM
  #19  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hingham, MA
Posts: 578
Default

lmao some awesome responses in this one
njk4o5 is offline  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:59 AM
  #20  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tarpon Springs, FL
Posts: 7,381
Default

Saying pot isn't bad a million times won't change the truth.
mikefloyd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread