• fb_100000136693408 avatar Andrea Posted: 12/31/2014 4:56pm PST

    Not an accurate test. The conductor who accompanied these individuals seemed lenient in situations that in a "real world" situation could have resulted in an accident. At the end of it all, the drivers admitted to being "too stoned" to drive. How can this article's title be so misleading? Furthermore, making the comparison of alcohol users at the end of the article is irrelevant. Each of these drivers, after each use of marijuana, had a BAL that was more than the legal limit and the amounts that they could physically use was very small, about the equivalent of 1 or 2 inhalations. If the same subject were to have 1 drink, they would still be within the legal limit. It is easier to surpass the legal limit of marijuana than alcohol in 1 use.

  • fb_1027177480 avatar Elmer Posted: 4/15/2013 10:12am PDT

    I know somebody that commutes from Orange County to downtown Los Angeles every day for work. He has been smoking since he was 12 years old and is currently about 55. Hum 35 years worth of driving and no accidents. I guess he just knows how much to smoke and not smoke.

  • fb_1792677598 avatar George Posted: 2/21/2013 12:08am PST

    Many years ago, like 30+, I recall psychological research data, I think out of the Univ. of Michigan, doing psychomotor performance testing, that demonstrated much LESS handicap with pot than with alcohol.

    Clearly the alcohol lobby is much better invested and effective than the pot "lobby," but I think there is probably a considerable evidentiary history of research that would show that a pot user is less dangerous behind the wheel than even an under the U.S. borderline alcohol user.

    Further, in much if not all of Europe, the blood alcohol limit for driving is .02 not the significantly more lenient .08 that is common in the U.S. Again I would suggest that this is further evidence of our liquor lobby.