> “An average level of 30.7 ng/mL generally means those people must have consumed marijuana at some time close to driving. This isn’t about residual use; it’s about recent consumption.”

If we are at 40% of the population being high at any given moment I think we are having extremely serious societal problems around mental health. Occasional use is not a big deal IMHO, but if a person is spending 40% of waking hours impaired that person has some serious unmet psychological needs.

▲

fn-mote 2 days ago | parent [-]

This reading doesn’t make sense. There’s no way to extrapolate from this to any statement about 40% of the population, and even 40% of the day is a serious misread imo.

▲

epistasis 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm replying to a comment suggesting that this data may be close to population levels rather than something different in the autopsy population.

I'm arguing that if the population data looks anything like the autopsy data, it would imply a massive epidemic of THC overuse.

▲

squigz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> it would imply a massive epidemic of THC overuse.

Not really, due to THC content in the body not being a reliable indicator of impairment or even time since use.

If BAC were more like THC levels, I suspect the data would show 40% or more of the population has consumed alcohol - or, in your words, is drunk "at any given moment"

	▲	epistasis a day ago \| parent [-]
		My quote from a specialist disagrees with your assertion. Have anything to support your statement?