| ▲ | Youden 2 days ago |
| There was a larger discussion in a previous thread on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494730 Since then, [0] has been published and I think it's worth at least a skim. Since it's quite recent the introduction summarizes some of the most recent research. The things that jump out at me are: - [0]: Habitual users with baseline concentrations above legal limits perform just as well as habitual users with baseline concentrations below the legal limit, indicating that for habitual users, the legal limit doesn't have any relation to impairement. - [1]: A study in Canada analyzed crash reports and blood tests to look at the state of drivers responsible for accidents. While alcohol had a very clear and statistically-significant influence on the risk of a driver causing an accident, THC did not. To steelman the idea that THC causes accidents, [0] only looks at habitual users with baseline levels of THC and [1] only looks at non-fatal injuries. My conclusion right now is that the number of drivers in accidents with THC in their blood is going up because the number of people with THC in their blood is going up, not because drivers who use THC cause accidents. The law's assumption that this level of THC is evidence of impairment seems to be invalid. The law would be better off measuring impairment in some way and perhaps intensifying penalties when an impairment test fails and the user has THC concentration above some threshold. [0]: https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/71/12/1225/8299832... [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31106494/ |
|
| ▲ | metadope a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > the number of drivers in accidents with THC in their blood is going up because the number of people with THC in their blood is going up This. In just the short time since legalization, recreational use in my immediate vicinity (a small Ohio village, one stop light) has decidedly, undeniably increased. I offer only an anecdotal observation, but my evening walks around town are now accompanied by a dank potpourri of skunk scents, representing I-don't-know-how-many strains of Sativa... Indica to me that at least 30% of the population here is puffing. |
| |
| ▲ | Scoundreller a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's evidence of increased public/open-air consumption, which is to be expected with legalization Don't need to hide it anymore, especially if the local police don't have much to do otherwise | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | >That's evidence of increased public/open-air consumption, which is to be expected with legalization >Don't need to hide it anymore, especially if the local police don't have much to do otherwise Yep. At least in New York City before legalization, using cannabis in public earned you an arrest and a night in jail despite the fact that it wasn't even a misdemeanor, just a local code violation with a $50 fine. That was done consistently (I know several folks who were caught up in such chicanery) for decades to deter folks from using in public. But enforcement was spotty and, as usual, melanin content played an outsized role in determining who would be "enforced." Thank goodness that's not happening anymore. Edit: Fixed prose ('we' --> 'were')> | | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have DEFINITELY noticed an increase in public usage yeah. Which is strange because that was not legalized in Ohio. Smoking a joint in your car going down the road or at the park is as illegal as it ever was. I’m sure overall usage numbers are up because I know a lot of people who started using it after they could buy it legally, but those people are all also infrequent users and I’m sure are not driving high. The people who would be deterred by weed being illegal are probably all in the “won’t drive stoned” category. (I’m sure many infrequent users pre-legalization, myself included, were never much worried about the legality but don’t drive high because we like being alive, and we continue to not do so now.) | | |
| ▲ | metadope 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | My fragrant walks around town put me in proximity to neighbors kicking it on their own property, visible and aromatic but not crossing the threshold into what I would consider to be 'public usage'. They're in their garage on folding chairs with the door open, or in the yard, or on a back porch. In addition to the distinctive smell of marijuana, there is often a recreational fire (wood smoke), and/or a BBQ (sizzling meat). It's publicly visible and apparent, but on private property. I have never been that social, haven't accepted a pass in decades, don't imbibe myself (despite my internym), and don't recommend it to young folk, but I must be getting a microdose and a minor contact high from the gentle breeze that floats through town more often since legalization. Second hand smoke is real, yo. The wind blows. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The study in the post we’re responding to has actual data to show otherwise. The data was collected both before and after legalization (and Ohio is one of the states studied) and did not find a significant increase. Weed was already easy to get. Any high schooler would have told you it was easier to get than beer BECAUSE it was illegal, nobody had a lucrative license to use for selling it to a minor. | |
| ▲ | rayiner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Same thing in DC. I thought the new development in DC where we lived had a major sewer gas problem. Turns out it was marijuana. | | |
| ▲ | chiffre01 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Also the amount of people in DC who drive while smoking weed seems very high(no pun intended). Based on the number of cars that can be smelled from another car while in traffic. | |
| ▲ | boston_clone a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Genuinely asking - had you never smelled cannabis before living in DC? To claim the odor is mistakable for sewer gas is borderline funny, unless you’re slyly trying to name a new strain. | | |
| ▲ | malikolivier a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I've never smelled cannabis before in my life and don't know what it's supposed to smell like. I live in an area of the world where it's illegal and I guess not many people are smoking it. I may also have had a quite sheltered education. This year, I went to British Columbia, and there was this weird scent everywhere that I could not describe. My wife said it was cannabis. I'm still not used to it so I don't know if I'll be able to recognize it next time I travel to North America. | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In my experience, weed smells like a skunk. Which makes it really annoying to be around people who smoke, that stuff is really unpleasant to have to smell. Honestly I don't know how people can stand to smoke it with how bad it smells. | | |
| ▲ | thatcat 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Different weed smells different, skunk weed has volitale sulfur compounds, others varieties lack this and may smell like fruit or rosemary. | |
| ▲ | scotty79 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I never smelled a skunk, but the first time I smelled this weed smell I immediately loved it and still love it to this day when I occasionally smell it on the street. Even though I don't smoke. I even bought cannabis scent incense few days ago. I guess perception of this smell, like many others is genetic. | |
| ▲ | golem14 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Am I the only one that doesn't find skunk smell not so horrid as it's generally made out to be? It's very strong, yes, but between skunk and asa foetida, it would be hard to choose ;) | | |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’ve never smoked it or been around anyone smoking it. It’s more of a lower class thing in the U.S.: https://news.gallup.com/poll/642851/cannabis-greatest-among-... (16% of households making under $24k smoke cannibis regularly, versus 5% of households making over $180k/year). | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone a day ago | parent [-] | | hell yeah for being in that 5%! but why bring classism into it? in states where it’s more normalized, it’s pretty even across those differentiators: https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statistical-reports/washington-t... | | |
| ▲ | dpark a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This 100% matches my experience in Washington. I know a lot of upper middle class who use cannabis. I think the consumption of edibles might be higher in the upper middle class vs smoked. But that’s very anecdotal. | |
| ▲ | rayiner 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Explaining why I never encountered it. Even today usage is quite unevenly distributed. I’m from an affluent, WASPy town in Virginia. By contrast it was common even in the 1990s in the lower class parts of Oregon where my wife grew up. | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Interesting. In my experience, the self-described affluent WASP-y types are exactly the kind of people that should probably smoke a joint and chill the fuck out every once in a while, lest they end up as close-minded conservatives. Thanks for sharing! | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | You’re more likely to find tattoos and marijuana smokers at a Trump rally than in the congressional district where I grew up. It was solidly red when I was growing up, but today is the orderly and industrious wing of the democratic party (Biden +18). | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | An inspiring tale of progress and change for the better! May more southern states unfetter themselves from regressive views. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | scotty79 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You will be. This scent is very distinct. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I had never smelled it before. It smells identical to sewer gas to me—I know what that smells like because our house was missing several drain traps. | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone a day ago | parent [-] | | Fascinating. I wonder if this is a genetic thing similar to people who sense soap for cilantro, except with terpenes instead of aldehydes. | | |
| ▲ | neomantra 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Youth these days tend to say “this weed has gas” rather than “this weed is dank”. I’m unsure if that is just due to gassy strains becoming more popular or just lingo. Garlic is another rising scent. | |
| ▲ | cj a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean weed really doesn't smell good. If you're not turned off by the smell, it's a learned pleasure. Similar to how nearly every child will dislike the taste of alcohol, yet after drinking for a while they'll learn to tolerate or enjoy it. It can be a very overpowering smell. When an odor overpowers, it's harder to discern one scent from another. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you're not turned off by the smell, it's a learned pleasure. For me it's was love at first smell. And I didn't smoke. Just smelled it from th adjecent room. It must be genetic. Alcohol is always dreadful for me. Same goes for cigarettes. | |
| ▲ | boston_clone a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | there are strains that, to me, smell pleasant. maybe you’re extrapolating a bit? terpenes are what make up most essential oils, in fact. | | |
| ▲ | dpark a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve never smelled pot that didn’t stink. It does not smell like a sewer to me but it distinctly smells like skunk. | | |
| ▲ | rented_mule a day ago | parent [-] | | A few years ago, I moved from San Francisco to a rural area. Smelling weed in SF was not at all unusual. One summer night in the rural area, I smelled it coming through open windows for the first time. I wondered which house it was coming from and how it still smelled so strong after traveling a hundred feet or more. Then I spotted the actual skunk in our yard. |
| |
| ▲ | golem14 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Mango, especially dried, smells and tastes of terpenes sometimes. I sometimes question why I like Mango ;) | |
| ▲ | hhh 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | most essential oils also smell bad in their pure form, you can always sense a smoker or a big essential oils person from their scent from afar |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The first time I smelt weed it reminded me of a skunk. I could see how that might be mistaken as sewage. | | |
| ▲ | dpark a day ago | parent [-] | | It’s very skunky. I thought a skunk had been killed on an industrial road I drive sometimes. The smell was there for months. I finally realized there’s a cannabis processing facility there. Still stinks years later now. |
| |
| ▲ | amyjess a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | As somebody who has no problem whatsoever with weed, it smells like pus from a tooth infection to me. I have had dental abscesses in the past that made my mouth taste like I was in a room full of cannabis smoke. | | |
| ▲ | boston_clone a day ago | parent [-] | | this is surprising to hear - thanks for sharing! i still can’t help but wonder if there are some perceptive differences at play here versus something learned. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lisbbb a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In and around Minneapolis, I have given up counting the number of times my car got filled with that horrid stench because someone in a car just ahead of mine was hot-boxing the hell out of their commute. It's really nasty to have to drive through the awful clouds of that crap. I also pulled into a gas station recently and my entire car got fumigated. Already sick of it. Also, the guy who shot up the church school here and killed and wounded a bunch of kids was a massive pot smoker. It made him psychotic, or magnified that existing mental illness. | | |
| ▲ | edgineer 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Living in proximity to people who don't care enough to not be annoying to others has a few ways you can look at it. But I suggest you consider upgrading the cabin air filter in your car. There are likely options with activated carbon to help reduce odors. This was actually a factor in my decision to go Tesla: their models S and X have an additional massive HEPA filter, and absolutely no outside smells make it into the car. | |
| ▲ | cluckindan 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | These horror-style anecdotes are hilarious echoes from decades past. | |
| ▲ | itsanaccount a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | oh no, he had the reefer madness? |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | mattmaroon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But this paper specifically rules out legalization as cause because the numbers didn’t significantly increase after legalization. |
| |
| ▲ | ambicapter a day ago | parent | next [-] | | How does this rule anything out? It is totally possible actual usage of THC didn't increase after legalization. It wasn't one of the hardest things to find when it was illegal. | | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you’re misunderstanding. The paper says that the rates of dead drivers having THC in their system above the threshold did not change significantly after legalization. So legalizing isn’t the culprit, exactly for the reason you cite: people could get it just fine before. |
| |
| ▲ | NewJazz a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Legalization does not signify usage. |
|
|
| ▲ | seizethecheese 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure, but in this study 40% of people had very high THC concentrations. Is it even remotely plausible this is the baseline population level? |
| |
| ▲ | bookofjoe a day ago | parent [-] | | DEAD people | | |
| ▲ | graeme a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If the population of dead drivers with over the limit THC is 40%, and this dramatically exceeds the population average, that would strongly suggest the THC level IS an indicator of either: 1. Impairment from THC, or 2. Worse than average driving and risk management skills in those who use the drug | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Do we know what the THC levels are in (1) drivers who didn't die, and (2) the population in general? It could just be that 40% of the population is over the limit on THC all the time. Unless we can compare this against something else, and we can somehow normalize the comparison for other factors like age, I don't know how we can use the data. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 a day ago | parent [-] | | This is a knowable thing, it just needs to be studied (I'm actually surprised it's not been TBH). Give people a standard set of coordination tests and then draw their blood to see what the THC level is. | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid a day ago | parent [-] | | If we were just interested in outcomes (in an accident or not), we should just be measuring that. But I guess if we can’t measure that, a litmus test is better than nothing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | machinationu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 2. young people are worse drivers and more likely to use | |
| ▲ | Retric a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The expected number seems to be about 20+% (depending on assumptions) so this is higher than expected but not drastically so. Critically, people are more likely to get in accidents later in the day and after drinking both of which also correlate with relatively recent cannabis consumption. | |
| ▲ | sfn42 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right, so it might just mean that reckless drivers are more likely to smoke weed. | |
| ▲ | hattmall a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's seat belts. People who die in wrecks are overwhelmingly not wearing seat belts. I would think marijuana users as a group probably have average seat belt usage, but people who don't wear seat belts probably have much higher than average marijuanna usage. Roughy 92% of people wear seat belts. But that 8% of people that don't wear setbelts makes up 50% or more of all fatalities. From my personal experience it seems easy to me to assume that 90% of the people that don't wear seat belts also use marijuanna. | | |
| ▲ | phito a day ago | parent | next [-] | | How are people not wearing seatbelt? I've never seen a car that doesn't make a constant annoying noise if you're not wearing it while driving. Do they mod the car to disable this safety system? That seems too far stretched... | | |
| ▲ | scottyeager a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Older cars don't have these systems. Also they are easy to bypass with a dummy buckle. There are counties where seatbelt usage is far less common than the US. | |
| ▲ | Mawr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then you've only ever seen fairly new, modern cars. Seatbelt warnings are a relatively new feature. | | |
| ▲ | Zak a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Seat belt warnings became mandatory in the USA in 1972[0]. From the mid 1970s until fairly recently, the warning tone would stop after a few seconds. [0] https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/10832/chapter/5 | | |
| ▲ | faidit 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've known people who would just endure the warning noise until it stopped. | | |
| ▲ | olyjohn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Many of them are just a light, and that's it. Or maybe the buzzer was burnt out lol. | |
| ▲ | Zak 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My parents disabled a couple by pulling a fuse or cutting a wire, but a lot of their use of the vehicles was off road at walking speeds. They wore seat belts on the road. |
| |
| ▲ | dpark a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mawr’s out there driving his Model T around town. |
| |
| ▲ | vel0city a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've had annoying seatbelt warnings on my cars aging back to at least the 90s. |
| |
| ▲ | crustaceansoup a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Just click the belt in with no one occupying the seat and sit on top of it. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city a day ago | parent [-] | | I never understood this though. It seems like more work and even more uncomfortable just to knowingly make things worse for yourself. | | |
| ▲ | eimrine a day ago | parent [-] | | Either O B E Y or do what you named as "more work". Different person chooses different way of dealing with annoyances. | | |
| ▲ | discreteevent 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don't fool yourself. In the end you have to obey the laws of physics and the punishment is extremely harsh and permanent. | | |
| ▲ | eimrine 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I read comment as "don't resist our egregious power, our business is to keep becoming more powerful by arguments with different persuasive power". I have to admit, the car safety argument is among the most persuasive, like do you want to get harmed? But in reality the question is not about "harming and nothing more", the question is about growing the egregious power AND caring about the tax payers simultaneously. | |
| ▲ | vel0city 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I never agreed to be bound to some "law of conservation of momentum"! I'm a free person! |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bluedino a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Many of them stop beeping for a while (or beep way less often) | |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sometimes you can change a setting in software with a programmer via the obd2 port. It's not "too far" it's easy. But even simpler is just a pacifier. Trivial. | |
| ▲ | pepperball a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | As a reminder of how little things change. I remember watching an old video from sometime when seatbelt laws were mandated in Texas. People were rambling on about how they basically live in the Soviet Union. |
| |
| ▲ | block_dagger a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You had me until the last sentence. Your easy assumption seems nonsensical to me. | |
| ▲ | Panzer04 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It seems much more straightforward to me to assume impairment. This is the obvious corollary, not seat belts. It could be seat belts, of course, but I don't think that's the obvious conclusion. | |
| ▲ | henearkr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can't make sense of it mathematically. A statistical distribution fitting these characteristics does not exist. If non-weeders have an average seat belt wearing, and if weeders also have an average seat belt wearing, then the proportion of weeders inside of the seat belt non-wearing class is just equal to the proportion of weeders inside the whole population. | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is this a joke? The people who don't wear seatbelts are in my observation old folks who grew up without them or before using them was mandatory. It's just their habit. I've almost never seen a person under about age 40 not using a seatbelt. | | |
| ▲ | hattmall a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No. I don't know a lot of people that don't wear seatbelts, but they all smoke weed. All of my friends that died in car wrecks weren't wearing seat belts and would have definitely tested positive for THC. I don't know any old people that don't wear seatbelts. The people I do know that don't wear seatbelts also live pretty otherwise high risk lives, drug dealers, strippers, street gang members,etc. | |
| ▲ | danaris 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | While I do not commonly ride in cars driven by people outside my family, my experience has been quite the opposite: when I do ride in cars with older people, they buckle up as a matter of course, while when I ride with younger people, they are much more likely not to. |
| |
| ▲ | SecretDreams a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The seat belts comment is so apt. We should be looking at the full population of drivers involved in accidents, not just those that went through a windshield. Restraints play such a pivotal role in crash safety, but not wearing them isn't a meaningful indicator of impairment status. |
| |
| ▲ | mindslight a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The second seems eminently plausible with the correlation between driving skills and drug use both being due to higher risk tolerance. |
| |
| ▲ | jeremyjh a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn't that support the hypothesis that high THC levels are dangerously impairing people's driving? | | |
| ▲ | lokar a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You need to consider other confounding factors It is well shown that age (youth) is a major factor in accident rates. | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not necessarily, they could both be a comorbidity of some other factor (bad decision making causes both, for instance) but it certainly doesn’t refute it. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tqi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| - [1]: A study in Canada analyzed crash reports and blood tests to look at the state of drivers responsible for accidents. While alcohol had a very clear and statistically-significant influence on the risk of a driver causing an accident, THC did not. I don't understand how this study can make that claim just looking at crash report data. The assumption that not at fault drivers are representative of people who aren't in accidents at all is pretty generous? It seems likely that folks who are unimpaired are also better at avoiding accidents / driving defensively |
|
| ▲ | belorn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My preferred way to wade through a political research topic like this is to look at the aviation industry. If a pilot can not use a medical substance, then it is very likely that there is some thing there. Pilots are generally fairly high investment, and they are also fairly international in research and standards. All nations with an airforce tend also be interested in such research, regardless of current political flavor. From glancing at it, it seems that TCH impair pilots ability. Here is such study (done with flight sims). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1849400/ "The results support our preliminary study and suggest that very complex human/machine performance can be impaired as long as 24h after smoking a moderate social dose of marijuana, and that the user may be unaware of the drug's influence. " |
| |
| ▲ | sokoloff a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think that aviation has a lot
of factors that bias its decisions conservatively. The “cost” of being conservative can be pretty easily borne in aviation. As an example, Zyrtec is grounding for 48 hours after taking. I think most Zyrtec users drive daily and likely quite safely, but aviation can afford to ground pilots at a lower level of risk than probably makes sense for drivers. (I have very little doubt that THC is impairing; that pilots can’t legally use it is only very loosely related to that likely linkage.) | |
| ▲ | cogman10 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you miss the point of the comment you replied to. > The law's assumption that this level of THC is evidence of impairment seems to be invalid. I think most will recognize that THC causes impairment. The question that (AFAIK) is unanswered is if it can be measured simply by looking at the concentration of THC in the blood. In fact, if you look into the mechanisms for alcohol tolerance vs THC tolerance. What you'll find is that alcohol tolerance is a result of the body developing fast paths for breaking down ethanol. Meaning the same BAC will have the same intoxication level, the body just works harder to keep the BAC down. THC tolerance, on the other hand, appears to be the THC receptors becoming desensitized to THC. Which means the body doesn't appear to metabolize THC faster as tolerance builds. That's where a blood test might not be a good indicator of THC impairment. | | |
| ▲ | belorn 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | What the aviation study show is that the impair can continue for a very long time after a single small use. A blood test might be a terrible indicator how how much the impairment is, but the question then is how much tolerance you need in order to have zero impairment under some levels of THC. It also but a bit of doubt that even after 24hrs the impairment can be noticed, long past where the user subjectively feel any effect. Alcohol tolerance might even be a positive here, since a drinker can drink a glass of beer 24hrs before a flight and be fairly certain that the ethanol has been broken down, regardless of tolerance. If THC metabolize slower as the body builds tolerance, then the impairment may continue for a longer time at a lower intensity even for a small dose, increasing the period of uncertainty. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | The question then becomes "what level of impairment is tolerable". Driving doesn't require perfect cognition, just good enough. If we went for perfect then anyone over 65 would be banned from operating a car. And I think that's the hard thing with THC. Yes you may be impaired 24 hours later, but how impaired and how does that compare to age related impairment. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dang a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thanks! Macroexpanded: Nearly half of drivers killed in (Ohio County) crashes had THC in their blood - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45494730 - Oct 2025 (125 comments) |
|
| ▲ | avereveard a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If that's the conclusion you'd also expect 40% of the population using it. |
| |
| ▲ | JK-Swizzle a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I would expect there to be significant overlap between the demographics of those who more commonly get in accidents and those who use THC. Based on nsc.org, it seems like the majority of car accidents are with drivers 25-34 years old, and occur more frequently late at night on weekends. That generally matches the profile of the stereotypical THC user. It is hard to find good numbers of THC use. Remember that not all the population drives, nor are accidents randomly distributed in the population. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/age-of-dr...
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/crashes-b... | | |
| ▲ | cluckindan 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | So in other words, people with a less risk-averse personality are more likely to engage in risky behaviors ”That generally matches the profile of the stereotypical THC user” Got a source for that claim? |
| |
| ▲ | advael a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That sounds about right to be honest |
|