The largest-ever study into drugs and driving was published in Australia last October. The study was performed by the University of Adelaide and Transport SA, and found that drivers with cannabis in their blood were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without.

The study analyzed 2,500 accidents, matching blood alcohol and drug levels of injured drivers with details from police reports. Researchers found that drug-free drivers caused the accidents in 53.5% of cases, while drivers with cannabis in their blood had a lower culpability rate of 50.6%. Injured drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration of more than 0.05% were culpable in almost 90% of accidents.

This study confirms the results of a comprehensive 1992 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), which concluded that marijuana is rarely involved in driving accidents except when combined with alcohol, and that "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

A 1983 study by the NHTSA which used stoned drivers on simulators concluded that the only statistically significant effect associated with marijuana use was slower driving! Another NHTSA study performed in 1993 dosed drivers with THC and tested them on real roads. It concluded that "THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

Sorry, Flex, you misread the experiment. (I did too - I had to read it several times before I 'got' it. My first reaction was, "Hey, that adds up to more than 100%!" But it makes sense once you figure out their sample.)

It turned out, upon just a little further inquiry, that the experimenters had injected drug X into the rats to disable the brain receptors which 'fit' the cannabinols, preventing the brain from 'absorbing' the molecules. Only then were the rats injected with THC. As a result, the rats showed signs of addiction. In short, what the data actually 'proved' is something that was already known: That humans (and some other mammals) have receptors which fit and process the cannabinols. They proved that cannabis is not addictive unless the natural brain receptors are inoperative. (BTW there is no known disease or drug, other than X, which causes a failure of receptors like this.) The "proof of addiction" turned out to be a 'spin' put on it by the sponsors of the experiment.

Anyway, the point is: saying, "everything written by Cannabis Culture is a lie," is simply poisoning the well. It's not a counter-argument.

PIMP, the experiment does not take all accidents and calc the percent of each drug's use. The way I understand it, there were 3 different samples. #1: accidents where one (and only one) driver was sober. #2: accidents where one driver was drunk #3: accidents where one driver was stoned. This corrects for the proportionally more drivers drive drunk fact. In the accidents with one party drunk, that party was culpable 90% of the time. In the accidents with one party stoned, that party was culpable only 50.6 percent of the time. This is not surprising, since alcohol is much more intoxicating than cannabis. (Why do you think those intoxication tests like walking in a straight line don't work on stoners?)

Let run through it again. The experimenter looked at the medical records of people who were injured in an accident. They threw out all the people showing multiple drugs. Then they looked at whose fault the accident was, according to the police record. Out of injured drivers showing only alcohol in their systems, 90% were at fault for the accident. Out of those showing only cannabis, barely more than 50% were at fault for the accident.

Reality check. Cannabis does not kill brain cells. Alcohol does, but cannabis does not. Cannabinols fit into brain receptors and are harmlessly absorbed. Get your facts straight, PIMP!

Whether there would be fewer accidents depends on whether, when pot is legalized, people would tend to switch to their favorite drug, in this case switch from alcohol to pot, or whether people will tend to do both. If enough people switch from alcohol to pot, then we would expect the number of accidents to go down.

The three main points of this thread so far:

1. Alcohol impairs driving significantly more than cannabis.
2. Alcohol kills brain cells; cannabis does not.
3. Cannabis is roughly as harmful (or harmless) as caffeine; while caffeine is medically addictive, cannabis is somewhat more intoxicating.

So, has Annoy's own pig-lady gone away?

Short term effects

In Western countries it is generally used as an aid to relaxation and a way of becoming mildly intoxicated or 'high'. Cannabis causes a number of noticeable but usually mild physical effects, including increased pulse rate and decreased blood pressure, bloodshot eyes, dry mouth, increased appetite and occasional dizziness. There are no records of fatal overdose.

The effects generally start a few minutes after smoking, and may last up to one hour with low doses and for two or three hours with high doses.

When eaten or drunk in a tea-type drink, cannabis takes an hour or more to have an effect and the effect can last 12 hours or longer. Taking cannabis in this way gives effects which are more intense and harder to control. High doses have been known to induce coma in young people.

The psychological effects of cannabis can be subtle and hard to classify. The drug has a mildly sedative effect and seems to increase the extent to which a person is (or allows themselves to be) open to external influences. The subtlety of these effects mean that they can be interpreted by the user in a wide variety of ways, depending on what the user expects or wants to happen and on the reactions of those around them. All these influences, together with the 'loosening' effect of the drug, mean that cannabis is used to produce relaxation, sociability, talkativeness, hilarity or episodes of introspective reflection.

Whilst under the influence of cannabis:

• There may be impairment of short-term memory.

• Cannabis affects body co-ordination, so manual skills (e.g. driving a vehicle, or operating machinery) are impaired.

• Inexperienced users may undergo temporary, and in a small percentage of cases, severe psychological distress and confusion.

• Less extreme feelings of anxiety, panic and suspicion are not uncommon.

• With higher doses, there may be perceptual distortions, forgetfulness and confusion, and varying degrees of temporary psychological distress, particularly if the user is anxious or depressed.

• Heavy use amongst those with latent or existing mental disorders may aggravate their condition.

• A heavy user constantly intoxicated by cannabis may appear apathetic, lack energy and perform poorly at work or in education. This state may persist for weeks after stopping using the drug.

Some people believe that cannabis is a 'gateway drug' and think that cannabis users are more likely to go on to use 'harder' drugs such as heroin. There is no evidence to support this belief. While most heroin users have used cannabis, very few cannabis users move on to use heroin.

Long term effects

It is probable that frequent inhalation of cannabis smoke over a period of years can lead to bronchitis and other respiratory disorders, cancer of the lung and other parts of the upper digestive tract. It is not known whether regular cannabis smoking will cause more or less risk to health than regular tobacco smoking, although cannabis users tend to inhale more deeply, and cannabis does contain higher concentrations of potentially carcinogenic tar.

There can be physical dependence on this drug. People who use cannabis regularly and heavily often come to feel a psychological need for the drug or may rely on it in order to become more sociable.

In depth case studies by a research team at the Centre for Psychosocial Studies in New York found that adults who smoked cannabis on a daily basis believed that the drug helped them to function better, improving self-awareness and relationships with others. However, researchers found that users were more willing to tolerate problems, suggesting that cannabis was being used as a way of avoiding dealing with difficulties. There appeared to be a discrepancy between what study participants said and what was actually going on, so that although users believed the drug enhanced an understanding of themselves, it actually served as a barrier against self-awareness.

Research funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the USA is gathering information on how cannabis acts on the brain. Studies have found that, in rats, chronic exposure to THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) damages and destroys nerve cells and causes other pathological changes to the hippocampus in the brain. Researchers have discovered that learned behaviours, depending on the hippocampus, deteriorate. So heavy, long term users of cannabis may be limiting their ability to learn. Such damage to nerve cells may also account for findings that prenatal exposure to cannabis is associated with impaired verbal reasoning and memory in pre-school children.

There has been speculation, based on data from animal tests, that heavy, long term use cannabis of affects the production of sperm in men and can cause abnormal sperm to develop.

Heavy, long term use is associated with abnormal menstruation and decreased ovulation in women.

Source:TRASHED

Would I prefer to share the road with a drunk who can't even keep his car between the lines for more than seven seconds, or with someone off in la-la land, having blown his mind on the plant, who wouldn't even know a stop light if it dropped like a bomb through his windshield? Quite frankly, I'd rather not deal with either of the two.

The effects of Cannabis may not be quite as obvious or as severe as those associated with Alcohol. But they are effects nonetheless, and effects that must be addressed.

The lesser of two evils, is still evil.

I think you are lying - otherwise you would be able to cite your sources instead of making stupid unsubstantiated charges. Police officers tend to be especially ignorant about drugs. DARE resulted in more, not less, students who took drugs. Maybe lying to kids is not the best strategy, huh?

MR's British anti-drug site also fails to cite sources. This tells me that they are probably using discredited Nahas studies. (Nahas was a 'scientist' who got caught falsifying data for his US drug agency employers.) I'll skip the Trash comments on short-term effects - I agree that cannabis gets you stoned! Let's debunk their long-term claims:

Brain Damage

Marijuana is psychoactive because it stimulates certain brain
receptors, but it does not produce toxins that kill them [7]
(like alcohol), and it does not wear them out as other drugs may
[57]. There is no evidence that marijuana use is a cause of brain
damage. Studies by Dr. Robert Heath claimed the contrary in
experiments on monkeys [4], but Heath's work has been sharply
criticized by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy
of Sciences on three primary counts:

1. its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys),


2. its failure to control experimental bias, and


3. its misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as
   "damaged" [5].

A far superior experiment by the National Center for
Toxicological Research (NCTR) involving 64 rhesus monkeys that
were exposed to daily or weekly doses of marijuana smoke for a
year found no evidence of structural or neurochemical changes in
the brains of rhesus monkeys [6, 58]. Studies performed on actual
human populations will confirm these results, even for chronic
marijuana users (up to 18 joints per day) after many years of use
[8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. In fact, following the publication of two
1977 JAMA studies, the American Medical Association (AMA)
officially announced its support for the decriminalization of
marijuana.

[4] Heath, R.G., A.T. Fitzjarrell, C.J. Fontana, and R.E.
Garey. "Cannabis sativa: Effects on brain function and
ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys," Biological Psychiatry.
15:657-690, 1980.

[5] Marijuana and Health, Institute of Medicine, National
Academy of Sciences, 1982.

[6] Slikker, William Jr. et al. "Behavioral,
Neurochemical, and Neurohistological Effects of Chronic Marijuana
Smoke Exposure in the Nonhuman Primate" in "Marijuana
Cannabinoids Neurobiology and Neurophysiology,'' Laura Murphy,
Andrzej Bartke ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1992.

[7] Matsuda, L.A., S.J. Lolait, M.J. Brownstein, A.C. Young,
and T.I. Bonner. "Structure of a Cannabinoid Receptor,"
Nature, 346 (issue 6824): 561-564. August, 1990.

[8] Co, B.T., D.W. Goodwin, M. Gado, M. Mikhael, and S.Y.
Hill. "Absence of cerebral atrophy in chronic cannabis
users," Journal of the American Medical Association, 237:
1229-1230, 1977.

[9] Kuehnle, J., J.H. Mendelson, K.R. Davis, and P.F.J. New.
"Computed topographic examination of heavy marijuana
smokers," Journal of the American Medical Association, 237:
1231-1232, 1977.

[10] Lancaster, Cattell. Mayor's Committee on Marijuana. The
Marijuana Problem in the City of New York. 1944.

[11] Freedman and Rockmore, "Marihuana: A Factor in
Personality Evaluation," 7: 765-781, 1946.

[12] Siler et al., "Marihuana Smoking in Panama,"
The Military Surgeon, 73: 269-280, 1933.

[57] Westlake, Tracy M., Allyn C. Howlett, Syed F. Ali, Merle
G. Paule, Andrew C. Scallet, William Slikker, Jr. "Chronic
Exposure to Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Fails to Irreversibly
Alter Brain Cannabinoid Receptors," Brain Research, 544:
145-149, 1991.

[58] Ali, Syed F., Glenn D. Newport, Andrew C. Scallet, Merle
G. Paule, John R. Bailey, William Slikker, Jr. "Chronic
Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey IV Neurochemical
Effects and Comparison to Acute and Chronic Exposure to
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Rats" Pharmacology,
Biochemistry & Behavior, 40: 677-682. 1991.

Wrong! Read the article please. First of all, the suspected main carcinogen in tobacco cigs is not present in cannabis.

It is accepted by a growing number of scientists today that all American cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium-210 [22], the same sort of radiation given off by the plutonium of atom bombs (ionizing alpha radiation). It just so happens that the tobacco plant's roots and leaves are especially good at absorbing radioactive elements from uranium-containing phosphate fertilizers that are required by U.S. law, and from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water [48]. It is the opinion of C. Everette Koop that this radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancer [29].

Secondly, pot 'cleans' your lungs rather than constricting and trapping tar and shit in your lungs like tobacco.

Experts Rate Problem Substances

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas.
• Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
• Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.
• Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that iseventually reached.
• Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent,the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
• Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure ofaddiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and socIal damage asubstance may do.

I don't. I've simply pointed out that 'harmful' and 'harmless' mean nothing without a point of reference. I've stated all along that cannabis has approximately the same risk as caffeine.

It is a shame that current law exacerbates the health risk of cannabis by (in most states) outlawing devices that minimize the harm. If the Indian culture is any indication, after it is legalized and normalized, most people will eat it in candies and drink it.

I don't see how that follows. The main hassle with cigs is not addiction per se, but lung cancer and emphysema. Someone on a patch is better off than someone who smokes. (I can't wait for the cannabis patch!) Actually, I think you are probably right that nicotine, like pot, is not addictive by the classic medical definition. But then again, neither is cocaine as it fails the tolerance condition also - or at least whatever tolerance there is, is limited like nicotine.

One of the criteria in the "Relative Addiction" article which nicotine came out quite bad on was Dependence. i.e.

"A central property of addiction is the user's control over the substance. With all drugs. including heroin, many are occasional users. The addictive property of the substance can be measured by how many users maintain a casual habit and how many are persistent, regular users.

According to large Government surveys of alcohol users, only about 15 percent are regular. dependent drinkers. Among cocaine users, about 8 percent become dependent. For cigarettes, the percentage is reversed. About 90 percent of smokers are persistent daily users, and 55 percent become dependent by official American Psychiatric Association criteria, according to a study by Dr. Naomi Breslau of the Henry Ford Health Sciences Center in Detroit. Only 10 percent are occasional users. "

I've had both ex-junkies and ex-alcoholics tell me that cigarettes were in their opinion harder to quit. Nevertheless, "ritualized habit" as you call it may explain it.

I don't believe it. I think that tapered withdrawal (as opposed to cold-turkey) has been used for both alcohol and heroin (or at least morphine) in the past. True, the most popular methods today (like AlAnon) take the cold-turkey approach, but that is definitely not the only way. There exist alcohol recovery groups that attempt to turn alcoholics into social drinkers (rather than teetotalers like AA).

Re: Stoned Drivers are Safe Drivers
6/29/99 7:39:54 PM
RichardCranium

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."

Re: Sloth
6/29/99 8:56:59 AM
hogeye

...Gibe is an interesting, if offbeat, hobby. It's fascinating to interact with scumbags you'd shun in person."