Cancer and the drug companies

[RDJ]

I was just trying to highlight what the actual thread was about as it seems to have been lost in a smokescreen

Yep! (& for some people smoke is a feature not a bug...).

[bogan]

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

I'm remain unconvinced of that, have we seen such a trend in US where they have legalised it?

[husaberg]

Yep! (& for some people smoke is a feature not a bug...).

Yeah I guess for some the ends justifies the means.

[Katman]

The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

Now you're talking bullshit again.

If someone is going to drive stoned they will do so whether cannabis is legal or not.

There are roadside tests available for recent cannabis use and it would therefore be treated no differently if it's legal status changed.

Alcohol is legal - it's illegal to drive pissed.

Get it?

[RDJ]

Accident-involved drivers with metabolites of cannabis in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the accident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself...

And the difficulty with your assertion that there are roadside tests available for cannabis abuse, is that metabolites of cannabis persist in the blood a lot longer after marijuana use, than metabolites of ethanol persist in the blood after drinking.

This is the background:

Roadside saliva testing to detect cannabis use occurs in a few overseas jurisdictions, but there are problems with it. Current saliva testing kits are not considered reliable enough for police to use when prosecuting people for being impaired by drugs while driving. In addition, saliva tests only show the presence of cannabis in the sample, which does not necessarily equate to a person being impaired (due to the amount of time cannabis can remain in a person’s system). Therefore police could not use them in place of the compulsory impairment test to assess if a person should not be driving.

At this time, roadside saliva tests are not considered to be reliable enough to support a random roadside testing regime. While roadside testing is being used in some Australian states, the tests miss some cannabis use and provide no evidence of whether a person is impaired by use. In a random roadside testing regime, drivers who are missed by a saliva test would be allowed to drive away without further assessment, which could lead to dangerously ‘stoned’ drivers being left behind the wheel.

[FJRider]

... The difficulty is, avoiding another population of impaired drivers on the roads - which would happen in short order if cannabis was legalised for non-medical use.

Booze is legal ... but you're not allowed to drive when under the influence of it though ...


But doing THAT seems common enough now. What will make the difference between being pissed ... or stoned ... in the great scale of impairments ..





But I would guess there are a far greater number of impaired drivers with much more serious issues of impairment on the roads than booze or drugs (legal or not).

[RDJ]

I'm remain unconvinced of that, have we seen such a trend in US where they have legalised it?

Currently, impossible to tell. It seems likely based on Occam's Razor, but seems is not proof. Blood tests can only check the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for severe impairment, and because metabolites linger for days after the drug effect whereof, sometimes weeks, all the positive test tells you that a driver involved in an accident smoked pot at some stage in the last few days or weeks. This doesn’t mean that the marijuana caused or was a contributing factor to accidents etc; on the other hand, it doesn't mean it wasn't. And that is precisely the point.

When I'm treating a driver who smells of alcohol, the driver has usually* been drinking, but only a blood alcohol test will tell me if, say, his apparent stupor and other signs of intoxication are caused by a significant level of alcohol in the blood, or for example are solely or mostly due to the effects of a head injury. *People who smell of alcohol may have zero blood alcohol but smell because they've had alcohol spilt on them. A minority, but it happens... and it would be a major mistake to assume that someone is disorientated because they're drunk, when they may be disorientated because they're injured. So as an aside, drinking before your injury complicates your diagnosis (and treatment, but that's a whole other discussion)

But there is no clinical test that will distinguish the effects of recent cannabis use from the effects of recent alcohol use. And as already discussed, there is no reliable laboratory test at the roadside or in the ER that will give you a quick answer either.

[Katman]

Accident-involved drivers with metabolites of cannabis in their blood, particularly higher levels, are three to seven times more likely to be responsible for the accident than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself...

Are you serious?

If the police think you're stoned now they'll take you straight off the road.

It will not change after the legal status changes.

Have you forgotten there are legal highs out there?

[RDJ]

Booze is legal ... but you're not allowed to drive when under the influence of it though ...


But doing THAT seems common enough now. What will make the difference between being pissed ... or stoned ... in the great scale of impairments ..


But I would guess there are a far greater number of impaired drivers with much more serious issues of impairment on the roads than booze or drugs (legal or not).

That is true. But is it wise to add yet another population of impaired drivers along with the already-drunken ones? Especially as the majority of people with cannabis on board, also drink.

You may be correct that there are a far number of impaired drivers with more serious issues of impairment than booze or drugs. But we don't see many of them in hospital... if you want to know how bad it gets an ER due to alcohol and drugs, read the New Zealand Medical Journal review article 10th June 2011, Volume 124 Number 1335. No need to take my word for it.

Bear in mind, what people drink and smoke and drive with impacts upon everybody else. The more time is consumed looking after the drunken fighters on a Saturday night, the less likely it is that the seriously ill or injured will get the best care available, quickly.

[RDJ]

Are you serious?

If the police think you're stoned now they'll take you straight off the road.

It will not change after the legal status changes.

Have you forgotten there are legal highs out there?

I had not forgotten there are legal highs out there, but they are presently legal. Whether it's smart for them to be legal is again an entirely different discussion.

What I have also not forgotten is that now, heigh-ho, it's off to work I go. and a wet and windy night so I just will break out the high viz gear... I trust I see none of the inmates of this forum at my place of work tonight or over the next week :-) May you all ride safely.

[Katman]

That is true. But is it wise to add yet another population of impaired drivers along with the already-drunken ones? Especially as the majority of people with cannabis on board, also drink.

You may be correct that there are a far number of impaired drivers with more serious issues of impairment than booze or drugs. But we don't see many of them in hospital... if you want to know how bad it gets an ER due to alcohol and drugs, read the New Zealand Medical Journal review article 10th June 2011, Volume 124 Number 1335. No need to take my word for it.

Bear in mind, what people drink and smoke and drive with impacts upon everybody else. The more time is consumed looking after the drunken fighters on a Saturday night, the less likely it is that the seriously ill or injured will get the best care available, quickly.

Well it should be easy enough to find out whether traffic incidents have increased noticeably in the places that have legalised cannabis.

[bogan]

Currently, impossible to tell. It seems likely based on Occam's Razor, but seems is not proof. Blood tests can only check the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for severe impairment, and because metabolites linger for days after the drug effect whereof, sometimes weeks, all the positive test tells you that a driver involved in an accident smoked pot at some stage in the last few days or weeks. This doesn’t mean that the marijuana caused or was a contributing factor to accidents etc; on the other hand, it doesn't mean it wasn't. And that is precisely the point.

When I'm treating a driver who smells of alcohol, the driver has usually* been drinking, but only a blood alcohol test will tell me if, say, his apparent stupor and other signs of intoxication are caused by a significant level of alcohol in the blood, or for example are solely or mostly due to the effects of a head injury. *People who smell of alcohol may have zero blood alcohol but smell because they've had alcohol spilt on them. A minority, but it happens... and it would be a major mistake to assume that someone is disorientated because they're drunk, when they may be disorientated because they're injured. So as an aside, drinking before your injury complicates your diagnosis (and treatment, but that's a whole other discussion)

But there is no clinical test that will distinguish the effects of recent cannabis use from the effects of recent alcohol use. And as already discussed, there is no reliable laboratory test at the roadside or in the ER that will give you a quick answer either.

What about looking at the totals though?

[FJRider]

That is true. But is it wise to add yet another population of impaired drivers along with the already-drunken ones? Especially as the majority of people with cannabis on board, also drink.

Has it not occured to you ... either pissed or stoned ... EVERBODY knows it IS illegal to drive under the influence of either NOW. Please explain how making a drug legal will change peoples perception of such .. ??

I do not believe there is ANY accurate information on what percentage of the driving population are driving stoned at present. So ... how could ANY (accurate) increase in numbers be claimed/declared .. ??

You may be correct that there are a far number of impaired drivers with more serious issues of impairment than booze or drugs. But we don't see many of them in hospital... if you want to know how bad it gets an ER due to alcohol and drugs, read the New Zealand Medical Journal review article 10th June 2011, Volume 124 Number 1335. No need to take my word for it.

Simple impairments like thinking it's ok to drive when ...

1. Not wearing their glasses when an endorsement on their license reqwuires it.
2. Thinking it's ok to text phone while driving.
3. Driving with no knowledge of any (recent) changes to important road rules.
4. Thinking there is NO difference between Give Way and Stop signs.

Feel free to add your own impairments people ...

Bear in mind, what people drink and smoke and drive with impacts upon everybody else. The more time is consumed looking after the drunken fighters on a Saturday night, the less likely it is that the seriously ill or injured will get the best care available, quickly.

The pissed and/or stoned I don't care about. It's the people they HURT when stoned/pissed I do ...

[RDJ]

Has it not occured to you ... either pissed or stoned ... EVERBODY knows it IS illegal to drive under the influence of either NOW. Please explain how making a drug legal will change peoples perception of such .. ??

I do not believe there is ANY accurate information on what percentage of the driving population are driving stoned at present. So ... how could ANY (accurate) increase in numbers be claimed/declared .. ??



Simple impairments like thinking it's ok to drive when ...

1. Not wearing their glasses when an endorsement on their license reqwuires it.
2. Thinking it's ok to text phone while driving.
3. Driving with no knowledge of any (recent) changes to important road rules.
4. Thinking there is NO difference between Give Way and Stop signs.

Feel free to add your own impairments people ...

The pissed and/or stoned I don't care about. It's the people they HURT when stoned/pissed I do ...

Thanks for the reasoned response. I agree, there doesn't seem to be any accurate information on what percentage are driving stoned; but there is accurate information on the percentage involved in injury and fatal accidents who are drug takers. While the impairments you list are all valid. But they don't appear to be as frequently lethal as impaired driving due to alcohol and drugs (disclaimer, the most serious accident I had in 35 years was being rear-ended at a traffic light by someone testing in a car). Also, the drunk-and-stoned need to be cared for; once people are injured, blaming them is fruitless, plus I already hear car drivers tell me from time to time that "injured motorcyclists (should) be left side of the road because we are mobile organ donors looking for some place to donate" and words to that effect. But what I was getting at was that the drunk and stoned delay treatment for everybody, not just themselves.

Stay safe!

[FJRider]

... but there is accurate information on the percentage involved in injury and fatal accidents who are drug takers.

I am in the belief that those that use drugs and drive now ... will continue if and when it is a legal drug. But ... what sort of percentage of "new" users are you expecting when legal status arrives .. that start using it because it is legal .. ??

While the impairments you list are all valid. But they don't appear to be as frequently lethal as impaired driving due to alcohol and drugs (disclaimer, the most serious accident I had in 35 years was being rear-ended at a traffic light by someone testing in a car).

Not as frequently reported you mean ... it's just not as newsworthy as "Another Drunk Driver Kills" ...

Or do you just base your opinions on your own personal experiences ... ???

In other words ... if it hasn't happened to you already ... it probably won't ... maybe ... right .. ??

Fatal (including motorcycle) accidents are usually caused by a sequence of factors ... not always any of them being particulary dangerous on their own. But actual timing of them can make it serious. In particular ... one small error of yours in combination of one of the motorist coming towards you can and does turn fatal.


The last 35 years you've been lucky. Most will hope the luck continue. But please do not rely on luck ... or it being unlikely that another motorists mistake will never affect you.

... Also, the drunk-and-stoned need to be cared for; once people are injured, blaming them is fruitless,

I would say that more sober drivers are found to be at fault in accidents (than drink/Drug impaired ones) ... and ALSO need to be cared for. Blaming THEM is just as fruitless ... and I fail to see your point.

... plus I already hear car drivers tell me from time to time that "injured motorcyclists (should) be left side of the road because we are mobile organ donors looking for some place to donate" and words to that effect.

Maybe .... the drunk and drugged ones should be too ...

But ... their organs might not be in a good enough condition to be suitable for donation ...

... But what I was getting at was that the drunk and stoned delay treatment for everybody, not just themselves.

Stay safe!

Who is "Everybody Else" .. ???

Do you mean those that are not stoned or drunk getting priority treatment ... and not those needing priority treatment ... ???

I cannot see the medical fraternity agreeing to this.