Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 19, 2013
POT How Well Did They Drive Stoned?
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM
KIRO Television filmed people getting stoned—and then stoned-er—and put them behind the wheel to see how they did:
Washington State's new legal limit for driving stoned, according to the legalization law passed in November, is 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of whole blood. So KIRO let a regular user, a moderate user, and an infrequent user all smoke pot to exceed that limit and drive on a closed track as officers watched.
While they initially drove fine above that 5 nanogram level—with some minor problems, including clipping a camera and going too slow—their driving got worse the more they smoked. They hit a cone and nearly hit a photographer. So this anecdotal experiment more or less confirms what science has shown before: Pot can compromise motor function. And while some people will look at this and scream that the 5 nanogram level is too low (because these three people didn't roll the sedan), it's worth pointing out three things: (1) THC and alcohol levels need to set the bar for infrequent users who are more likely to have trouble at lower dosages; (2) past scientific research shows crash risk increases above 5 nanograms; and (3) it's impairment officers are primarily after: cops make that clear in the video and there's been no spike in pot DUIs since the law took effect. It's also good to remember that after about two hours, all of these people's THC levels had plummeted from about nine times the legal limit to only about twice the legal limit, suggesting that stoners who wait four to six hours to drive will not only be better, more sober drivers, they'll likely be comfortably within the limits prescribed by law.
But the best part about all this? That there are two cops there monitoring the whole thing—just watching people smoke weed like it ain't no thing.
37
@36,
Forget about it. My comments came out of the total lack of consistency The Stranger writers and commenters display on a regular basis (e.g., shit like, "I personally hate guns so I want them all fucking banned immediately! But I'm a goddamned stoner and I can drive great after six bong hit so this law sucks!). Pisses me off and I start veering off-topic.
What I really think should happen is this: Install breathalizers mandatory in every car. If you blow over a .06 BAC, the car won't start. Take a nap and try again later.
As for pot and driving? Too early to tell. Once pot's legalized in enough places, we'll start getting better data as to how much is too much. We'll work it out from there. There's definitely gonna be some pot-impaired driving fatalities... that's as inevitable as is the inevitability that it's gonna be legalized nationwide within 20 years or so. We'll learn plenty then.
And nope, I don't have a ton of experience smoking pot (not zero, but not much), but one doesn't have to be a regular user of something to know what the effects of that thing are.
But whatever... I think this thread's dead anyway.
Forget about it. My comments came out of the total lack of consistency The Stranger writers and commenters display on a regular basis (e.g., shit like, "I personally hate guns so I want them all fucking banned immediately! But I'm a goddamned stoner and I can drive great after six bong hit so this law sucks!). Pisses me off and I start veering off-topic.
What I really think should happen is this: Install breathalizers mandatory in every car. If you blow over a .06 BAC, the car won't start. Take a nap and try again later.
As for pot and driving? Too early to tell. Once pot's legalized in enough places, we'll start getting better data as to how much is too much. We'll work it out from there. There's definitely gonna be some pot-impaired driving fatalities... that's as inevitable as is the inevitability that it's gonna be legalized nationwide within 20 years or so. We'll learn plenty then.
And nope, I don't have a ton of experience smoking pot (not zero, but not much), but one doesn't have to be a regular user of something to know what the effects of that thing are.
But whatever... I think this thread's dead anyway.
36
35 - It's plain as fucking day you've got zero personal experience actually smoking pot, particularly as a regular user ("mind-altering? seriously?). People light up in the morning all the damn time, just like having a cigarette and a cup of coffee. Sure - you can make the case that cigarette smokers and coffee drinkers are addicts who need their fix too - but it's completely disingenuous to frame a morning cup or a smoke as some kind of life-crippling addiction on par with habitual heroin or speed use.
While I agree to a certain extent that impairment from inhaling a sufficient amount of the drug occurs, it's an utterly different kind of impairment that doesn't have the same cognitive effects that alcohol has on the hand-eye coordination parts of the brain.
Honestly, all smokers are vocalizing an obvious point they've tacitly learned while driving stoned; you need to get seriously ripped before your driving is noticeably impaired, and it's a different ballgame than drinking. While I personally think the limit is extremely low, I also think you'd need to be ridiculously stoned to ever get pulled over for poor driving in the first place. So good riddance if you're a pinballing between lanes. But you're a dumbass who has no business participating in the discussion if you don't see potentially negative implications arising from setting a limit which isn't congruent with real driving and consumption behaviors.
While I agree to a certain extent that impairment from inhaling a sufficient amount of the drug occurs, it's an utterly different kind of impairment that doesn't have the same cognitive effects that alcohol has on the hand-eye coordination parts of the brain.
Honestly, all smokers are vocalizing an obvious point they've tacitly learned while driving stoned; you need to get seriously ripped before your driving is noticeably impaired, and it's a different ballgame than drinking. While I personally think the limit is extremely low, I also think you'd need to be ridiculously stoned to ever get pulled over for poor driving in the first place. So good riddance if you're a pinballing between lanes. But you're a dumbass who has no business participating in the discussion if you don't see potentially negative implications arising from setting a limit which isn't congruent with real driving and consumption behaviors.
35
@31,
And I know people who could drive quite safely with a .05 to .08 BAC (including myself).
We can't tailor the law to suit everyone's individual tolerances. Better to make it zero tolerance. Need to drive? Then don't take mind-altering drugs beforehand. Simple as that. Just fucking stop.
If someone is incapable of stopping themselves from getting drugged up on pot or booze before they drive to work, they've got serious problems. They need help.
And I know people who could drive quite safely with a .05 to .08 BAC (including myself).
We can't tailor the law to suit everyone's individual tolerances. Better to make it zero tolerance. Need to drive? Then don't take mind-altering drugs beforehand. Simple as that. Just fucking stop.
If someone is incapable of stopping themselves from getting drugged up on pot or booze before they drive to work, they've got serious problems. They need help.
34
@33: Would ~they~ lie? Yes. Yes people lie all the time about their lesser ability to drive and operate heavy machinery while intoxicated.
Can you drive and operate heavy machinery? Certainly. People do it all the time while loaded without killing people. Should they? Nope.
Can you drive and operate heavy machinery? Certainly. People do it all the time while loaded without killing people. Should they? Nope.
33
@31 I've heard that so many times. If it was really generally true, we wouldn't even have the need to come up with the term "drunk driving." There are plenty of victims as well as their families and friends who would assertively disagree with you.
31
Oh Fork off, Urgutha,
You obviously cant handle, well, anything.
Back when I was pouring concrete, we used to light up at 5am on our way to work, work our asses off for 10-12 hours, be getting stoned on the way back (and a couple times during the day as well), usually driving 60-80 miles each way in all kinds of weather and traffic conditions.
Never wrecked anything, It's because I paid attention to the road, kept aware of everything and everyone around me, I wasn't texting , or fucking around with the cd player.
I've gotten ripped and taken some long fast rides on my motorcycle as well.
I'm a lot less dangerous stoned than the woman I saw recently on I-5, driving with her knee, texting, swatting her kid in the back seat, and stuffing her face with a cheeseburger. Basically doing everything except driving.
Take me to the track, get me super stoned, and let me drive MY car(the one I am familiar with), and I can demonstrate there is no statistical difference, in terms of speed, safety, or other metrics, between driving straight and stoned.
It's all about staying focused, and adjusting to the changing conditions around you.
You obviously cant handle, well, anything.
Back when I was pouring concrete, we used to light up at 5am on our way to work, work our asses off for 10-12 hours, be getting stoned on the way back (and a couple times during the day as well), usually driving 60-80 miles each way in all kinds of weather and traffic conditions.
Never wrecked anything, It's because I paid attention to the road, kept aware of everything and everyone around me, I wasn't texting , or fucking around with the cd player.
I've gotten ripped and taken some long fast rides on my motorcycle as well.
I'm a lot less dangerous stoned than the woman I saw recently on I-5, driving with her knee, texting, swatting her kid in the back seat, and stuffing her face with a cheeseburger. Basically doing everything except driving.
Take me to the track, get me super stoned, and let me drive MY car(the one I am familiar with), and I can demonstrate there is no statistical difference, in terms of speed, safety, or other metrics, between driving straight and stoned.
It's all about staying focused, and adjusting to the changing conditions around you.
30
So they'll slowly drift off the side of the road and into a pedestrian/yard, or some idiot behind them will get annoyed at their slow speed and fly around them, causing a head-on collision. How many people measure the amount of tokes they take, anyway?
29
Don't fucking drive a car when you're stoned or drunk or otherwise incapacitated. Period. NO AMOUNT OF DRUNK OR DRUGGED IS SAFE FOR DRIVING. NONE WHATSOEVER. ZERO POINT ZERO.
When you're driving, you're in a 1 ton death machine. Treat it with some fucking respect.
When you're driving, you're in a 1 ton death machine. Treat it with some fucking respect.
28
The takeaway is clearly that people drive fine at 5 nanograms and up to about 20 nanograms. The difference between driving with .08 BAC and .36 BAC (or .02 and .08) is surely even more significant. The takeaway is clearly not that the legal limit for THC while driving is reasonable.
26
"But my sincere hope is that reasonable people can soon agree that something like 10 nanograms is probably more appropriate, and get the law changed accordingly after pot legalization is more normalized in the culture."
But anyway, I agree that more studies will tell us what the optimum level will be.
But anyway, I agree that more studies will tell us what the optimum level will be.
25
@22: "it pretty much took an entire gram of medicinal pot before people started driving badly. And we still think 5 nanograms is reasonable?"
Compared to 0 ng? Yes.
Compared to 0 ng? Yes.
24
I love Slog threads like this. Despite reams of evidence pointing to human-controlled automobile operation as being a barely-contained cauldron of violent injury and death under the best and most sober of circumstances, we continually find ways to dissemble, anecdotalize, and ultimately justify our poor decision-making before getting behind the wheel. Amazing.
23
I've driven cross country five times completely ripped and never got so much as a scratch. In fact, I avoided accidents that others had caused in front of me. And drove through two snowstorms and several rain storms. Many years ago.
22
So essentially, it pretty much took an entire gram of medicinal pot before people started driving badly. And we still think 5 nanograms is reasonable? Even though Addy was 11 times that by the time she started fucking up?
I understand that it was necessary to be draconian on the limit initially...you have to err on the side of caution and this was tremendously progressive legislation already. But my sincere hope is that reasonable people can soon agree that something like 10 nanograms is probably more appropriate, and get the law changed accordingly after pot legalization is more normalized in the culture.
I understand that it was necessary to be draconian on the limit initially...you have to err on the side of caution and this was tremendously progressive legislation already. But my sincere hope is that reasonable people can soon agree that something like 10 nanograms is probably more appropriate, and get the law changed accordingly after pot legalization is more normalized in the culture.
21
@19: "Did well" != drive better. When they got buzzed, they did objectively worse. All evidence available debunks those tired lies.
Regardless, once pot gets rescheduled, the availability of multiple studies will help tune better, more accurate laws (or at least give less subjectivity to the argument.)
Regardless, once pot gets rescheduled, the availability of multiple studies will help tune better, more accurate laws (or at least give less subjectivity to the argument.)
20
The last line of the video is the most important.
These drivers KNEW they were on a closed course, being monitored and watched, with no distractions, in daylight.
How well would they do if all that was gone and they were out at night to visit friends, stoned and not trying to show the maximum caution and skill?
This was just a controlled "experiment" not real life.
These drivers KNEW they were on a closed course, being monitored and watched, with no distractions, in daylight.
How well would they do if all that was gone and they were out at night to visit friends, stoned and not trying to show the maximum caution and skill?
This was just a controlled "experiment" not real life.
19
@18 each of the drivers did well at the first level of impairment or "a little buzzed" Going slow was the only issue. It was only after they got really wasted that there were any issues affecting safety. This seems to support what @17 said.
18
@17: "when im a little buzzed i drive way safer and slower than when im sober."
You do realize that this video addresses the stoner myths/lies, right?
You do realize that this video addresses the stoner myths/lies, right?
17
being a little stoned actually makes people drive slower and more cautious. but we knew that. way better than the over-confidence errors from alcohol. either way when im a little buzzed i drive way safer and slower than when im sober.
15
@14,
Or your response times are higher? Well, whatever; the point is, if you've been drinking, it takes longer for you to react to problems on the road.
Or your response times are higher? Well, whatever; the point is, if you've been drinking, it takes longer for you to react to problems on the road.
14
@4,
You could make the same case about alcohol. Many people drive fine at .08 BAC. They are somewhat impaired, but they are absolutely not the veering-all-over-the-place, falling-down-drunk drivers that we all associate with drunk driving. But that's not the point. Even at such a low BAC, you still have a higher risk of getting into an accident since your response times are lower. And the limit needs to be set somewhere.
You could make the same case about alcohol. Many people drive fine at .08 BAC. They are somewhat impaired, but they are absolutely not the veering-all-over-the-place, falling-down-drunk drivers that we all associate with drunk driving. But that's not the point. Even at such a low BAC, you still have a higher risk of getting into an accident since your response times are lower. And the limit needs to be set somewhere.
13
For everyone who wants to see more of dreamy Addy behind the wheel, here are a few minutes of her outtakes:
http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/seattl…
http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/seattl…
12
Such a fun report. I loved the cheerful and down-to-earth driving instructor - total reality check on how the baseline driving skill isn't that high a bar in the first place.
10
It's not like all the cop cars have dash cam videos showing how unfit to drive the drivers were.
Juries around here will throw people who drive drunk or stoned in jail. Just not for the lame ass "possession".
Juries around here will throw people who drive drunk or stoned in jail. Just not for the lame ass "possession".
9
@1, I'll believe that times have changed when the first pot stores open up in Georgetown and people are buying their stashes and going home w/o getting stopped by the DEA.
I wouldn't be surprised if the President and the DOJ pull a trick bag and "impair" the ability of the stores to do business, e.g., prohibited the licenses, due to marijuana being illegal under federal law.
I wouldn't be surprised if the President and the DOJ pull a trick bag and "impair" the ability of the stores to do business, e.g., prohibited the licenses, due to marijuana being illegal under federal law.
7
I used to work as a muni prosecutor and learned more than I ever wanted to know about DUIs. The officer in the clip was totally right on impairment. Even if someone did get pulled over and arrested on a pot DUI with little or no impairment and a test result that was at or just above the legal limit, any prosecutor would drop that case like it was hot. The arrest and the test would be thrown out in a heart beat based on probable cause issues even a second year law student could spot. And the arresting officer would get a snarky email from the PA asking them why they were sending the PA worthless cases.
6
In 1934 I'm sure KIRO would have done a radio show on driving drunk and then drunker..you know since prohibition was over
4
After seeing the report, I did have "five nanograms is too low" thoughts running through my head. Yeah, they weren't perfect drivers while mild to moderately stoned, but they were still better than my mother-in-law driving stone cold sober.
The thing I noticed, though, was that it wasn't until the three drivers got seriously high that the drug recognition expert started saying that they would be likely to get pulled over. And by that time, the drivers were all admitting that they shouldn't be driving in that state anyway. Driving would sure as hell be at the bottom of my to-do list if I'd just smoked a full gram of high-powered pot.
The thing I noticed, though, was that it wasn't until the three drivers got seriously high that the drug recognition expert started saying that they would be likely to get pulled over. And by that time, the drivers were all admitting that they shouldn't be driving in that state anyway. Driving would sure as hell be at the bottom of my to-do list if I'd just smoked a full gram of high-powered pot.
2
My parents have a story about driving home after attending a ZZ Top concert in the King Dome. After the concert on the way home, everyone was racing by them on I-5. They were surprised at how everyone seemed to be in such a hurry. Then they saw they were doing 25mpg on I-5.
1
I saw this on Sunday night - the reporter looked like he was having a blast, wagging the baggie of pot at the camera, and the lady driver is hilarious.
Times sure have changed.
Times sure have changed.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (37) RSS