cannabisnews.com: Group Wants Pot Tests for Loaded Drivers Group Wants Pot Tests for Loaded Drivers Posted by CN Staff on November 04, 2003 at 09:22:19 PT By Lori Coolican, Edmonton Sun Source: Edmonton Sun The federal government shouldn't push ahead with plans to decriminalize pot until cops have a way to detect and charge stoned drivers, an anti-drunk- driving group warned yesterday. There's one problem with that, says a University of Toronto scientist: the only truly reliable test for marijuana impairment requires a sample of the stoner's brain. "If you want to get the amount of marijuana that's affecting behaviour, you really need a sample from the brain, and you'll not get a lot of co-operation for that," Dr. Alison Smiley said yesterday. Smiley, who has conducted numerous field experiments on the effects of things like shiftwork, medical conditions, alcohol and drugs on human performance, published a paper in 1999 concluding weed-stoned drivers are impaired, but they drive more carefully as a result. "When you look at crash responsibility studies, you don't see a big increase in the likelihood of being responsible for a crash when you've been consuming marijuana," she said. A Dutch study for the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1993 administered driving tests to stoned and drunk drivers in a series of controlled experiments. The pot smokers all passed. At a joint press conference in Ottawa yesterday, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Canadian Professional Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police urged the government to give police more authority to detect and charge impaired drivers before drug possession laws are relaxed. "It is a recipe for trouble on our roads, and MPs need to delay this bill until the proper public safeguards are in place," said MADD national director Andrew Murie. Police can pinpoint a driver's alcohol level, but there's no roadside reefer-screening device. Acting Sgt. Conrad Moschansky, the only Edmonton city cop trained in "drug recognition," administers a 45-minute series of interviews and physical tests on drivers suspected of pot impairment. "It's getting very common. We're seeing it at checkstops all the time," Moschansky said yesterday. His work is hampered because there's no legislation allowing him to compel suspected stoners to submit to the tests, he said. Note: Scientist says that's not so easy.Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB) Author: Lori Coolican, Edmonton SunPublished: Tuesday, November 4, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Canoe Limited PartnershipContact: letters edm.sunpub.comWebsite: http://www.fyiedmonton.com/htdocs/edmsun.shtmlRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis and Drivinghttp://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.htmlMADD, Police Groups Slam Proposed Pot Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17722.shtmlAlcohol Impairs Driving More Than Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12299.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #15 posted by pdpierce on November 05, 2003 at 20:42:49 PT: Impaired? If they can't tell whether or not someone is impaired, using all the normal roadside tests that are used for alcohol, isn't it reasonable to assume that they're not too impaired to safely operate their vehicle? [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by afterburner on November 04, 2003 at 15:17:23 PT: There Goes that Pesky Word "High" Again MADD assumes that a cannabis "high" will impair like an alcohol "high." Therefore, they feel that a threshold like .08 and a test instrument are necessary for cannabis, like the ones we have for alcohol. They ignore scientific research that shows cannabis drivers are safer that alcohol drivers. ego transcendence is not the same as ego destruction, physically or mentally. Ignorance caused by fear tries to equate them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by OverwhelmSam on November 04, 2003 at 14:25:42 PT: MADD's Misconception MADD would have the public believe that marijuana impairment is similiar to alcohol. The reality is that marijuana doesn't affect driving in the same way as alcohol. The probability that someone high on marijuana will be stopped is significantly less than someone who is drunk.A drunk on the road is clearly much more dangerous than a person high on marijuana. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by 13th step on November 04, 2003 at 13:17:40 PT Roadside sobriety tests.. It's all about the individual cops feelings/suspicions.I have a friend who passed the field sobriety test 3 times (!!!) and then was forced to breathalyze because the cop didn't get the test results he wanted. My friend blew a .21. (He's a professional drunk.) After he blew the .21 , the cop made him do the field test again for the other cops. They were quite impressed.As with alcohol, trying a field test for canna will be impossible to apply equally to everyone. It will end up being not if you can drive/walk a straight line, it will be whether or not the cop likes the look of you.Both tests forget one thing : tolerance. Just because you can't drive at .08 doesn't mean that I can't ; and with cannabis , it's even more obscured. Not to mention the myriad of other factors that go into deciding if someone is "capable" of driving.Would I have an unfair advantage because I like to smoke when i go out in the woods to hike & camp? I climb a mountain/knob/bald/etc. as intoxicated (high) as I want to, and feel I am very adept at walking over any terrain , I have excellent balance, and don't trip up. I've never failed a field sobriety test , and I've taken *MANY* under the influence of cannabis. I know one thing, for certain : I'd rather have my .21 blowing friend drive me around than my .00 mother , who still has a license, and hasn't been able to walk a straight line in years. let alone drive safely without frightening the **** out of everyone! (In & out of the car.)I'm a little more worried about an 80 year old behind the wheel, rather than a pot smoker or a drunk. Maybe that's because everyone I've known who has been in a wreck was hit by an old person. Or maybe it's because I can see through hysterical B.S.Who knows... [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on November 04, 2003 at 12:26:07 PT Thanks Jose http://johnconroy.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by jose melendez on November 04, 2003 at 12:04:27 PT no formatting, sorry from:http://www.whois.net/whois.cgi2?d=normlcanada.orgDomain Name:NORMLCANADA.ORG Created On:22-Mar-2000 06:33:44 UTC Last Updated On:21-Oct-2003 01:46:57 UTC Expiration Date:22-Mar-2004 06:33:44 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R30-LROR Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:DP-376477 Registrant Name:John Conroy Registrant Organization:Conroy and Company Registrant Street1:2459 Pauline St. Registrant Street2:NA Registrant City:Abbotsford Registrant State/Province:BC Registrant Postal Code:V2S3S1 Registrant Country:CA Registrant Phone:+1.6048525110 Registrant Email:jconroy JOHNCONROY.COM Admin ID:DP-376478 Admin Name:John Conroy Admin Organization:Conroy and Company Admin Street1:2459 Pauline St. Admin Street2:NA Admin City:Abbotsford Admin State/Province:BC Admin Postal Code:V2S3S1 Admin Country:CA Admin Phone:+1.6048525110 Admin Email:jconroy JOHNCONROY.COM Billing ID:DP-1100010 Billing Name:chris clay Billing Organization:Conroy and Company Billing Street1:2014 Fernwood Rd. Billing Street2:NA Billing City:Victoria Billing State/Province:bc Billing Postal Code:V8T 2Y9 Billing Country:CA Billing Phone:+1.2503813501 Billing Email:cclay greenghost.biz Tech ID:DP-376478 Tech Name:John Conroy Tech Organization:Conroy and Company Tech Street1:2459 Pauline St. Tech Street2:NA Tech City:Abbotsford Tech State/Province:BC Tech Postal Code:V2S3S1 Tech Country:CA Tech Phone:+1.6048525110 Tech Email:jconroy JOHNCONROY.COM [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by delariand on November 04, 2003 at 12:02:45 PT Of course, the most obvious question goes unasked What's wrong with the current roadside sobriety test? Hasn't it been shown by numerous scientific studies that a roadside sobriety test can determine whether a person is capable of driving? Quite simply, a person who is sober will be capable of passing a sobriety test, a person who is coordinated and alert enough to drive will be capable of passing a sobriety test, and a person who's enough under the influence of anything to fail the test shouldn't be behind the car. Why does it matter what they're intoxicated on? It's clear that what we want to prevent is driving while incapable of doing so. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 04, 2003 at 11:47:13 PT Jose is NORMLCanada a New Site? http://www.normlcanada.org/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by jose melendez on November 04, 2003 at 11:38:07 PT Lesson for MADD: DARE speak truth. "I can say that there are some quite distinguished researchers who are going through incredible contortions to try and prove that marijuana has to be a problem,"http://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.html"Marijuana might affect performance in a favourable way by reducing risk-taking"http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1989.a01.html%20target= [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by jose melendez on November 04, 2003 at 11:33:51 PT old news, good news from:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm" . . . research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says. "Both substances impair performance," Smiley says. "However, the more cautious behaviour of subjects who received marijuana decreases the drug's impact on performance. Their behaviour is more appropriate to their impairment, whereas subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner." [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by jose melendez on November 04, 2003 at 11:28:39 PT testing . . . http://www.normlcanada.org/driving_pot_usdot1993.htmlalcohol impaired both vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 g/kg THC, on the other hand, did not significantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. Subjects' ratings of driving quality and effort to accomplish the task were strikingly different from the driving instructor's ratings. Both groups rated their driving performance following placebo as somewhat better than 'normal'. Following the active drug, ratings were significantly lower (35%, p.009) in the marijuana, but not (5%, ns) in the alcohol group. Perceived effort to accomplish the driving test was about the same in both groups following placebo. Following the active drug, a significant (p.033) increase in perceived effort was reported by the marijuana, but not the alcohol group. Thus, there is evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition, but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self-critical after consuming low doses of THC, as smoked marijuana. Drug plasma concentrations were neither related to absolute driving performance scores nor to the changes that occurred from placebo to drug conditions. With respect to THC, these results confirm the findings in previous studies. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 04, 2003 at 11:07:22 PT Here's Abraham Lincoln's Words Prohibition"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance.It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. PresidentSpeech, 18 Dec. 1840Illinois House of Representatives [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on November 04, 2003 at 10:40:20 PT The WOD encourages vice not virtue How can a narcotics detective be successful without lying?How can a marijuana grower be successful without lying?How can a drug prosecutor be successful without lying?The whole War on Drugs requires lying on every side, from top to bottom.A virtuous drug war is impossible, because drug cops can't do their jobs at all without lying.Hi, I'm an undercover officer, I'm only pretending to be a heroin addict so that I can bust you.How can this war be about virtue when it can only be fought with vice?How can it be good to take presumably honest people and make them tell lies for a living? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 04, 2003 at 10:20:05 PT EJ, Yes I Agree You said:We all have to discover and rediscover our own virtues and vices every day in fighting this war.I say:I believe I am a liberal conservative and heaven knows what else I could be called. I believe in moral values. I believe in trying really hard to live a good life. I try to avoid conflict as much as possible but I believe in standing up and saying something if I have been wronged. It's a delicate balance and I know I give these issues a lot of attention. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on November 04, 2003 at 09:55:58 PT Personal ethics -- the cornerstone of freedom I've only recently realized how much the perpetuation of an open society relies on people being able to remain truthful when they're under enormous pressure to lie.In some way I am agreeing with Bill Bennett that old fashioned virtue does matter.It's rather tragic the way he projects a lack of virtue on the cannabis world.We all have to discover and rediscover our own virtues and vices every day in fighting this war. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment