No, smoking pot does not make you a better driver


Smoking pot before driving doubles the risk of a serious or fatal car crash, according to a new Canadian study. The research by professor Mark Asbridge of Dalhousie University also found that the number of Canadian driving under the influence of marijuana is growing; in some places it is more common than drinking in driving. Previous research looking into the link between marijuana consumption and the risk of car accidents had yielded different results, so the Dalhousie team pooled data from nine studies involving 49,411 drivers from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, France and the Netherlands. The researchers discarded all cases where alcohol or other substances had been found in the blood of drivers who either tested positive for marijuana or reported to have been smoking within three hours of the crash. They found drivers who had smoked pot had a 92 per cent higher risk of being involved in an accident causing serious injury or death to themselves or other people.

Filed under:

No, smoking pot does not make you a better driver

  1. Doesn’t such a conclusion rely on information about how many people smoke pot, and how often?  Being an illegal substance still in most of those countries, is that information really available?  You can test the accident drivers, but it’s hard to imagine a way to get an unbiased sample of the population at large (those likely to fail a drug test are also likely to avoid one).

    • A more conclusive test would be like they do with drinking, wherein measured quantities are taken by subjects who then perform motor skills tasks including trying to negotiate a marked road course. Problem is, you can’t conduct that test using an illegal substance, so this is probably the best they can do.

      • Well, it could be done in some jurisdictions.

  2. Well, what’s the incidence of people smoking pot while driving? How about people texting or blabbing away on their cell phone while driving? I’m more more concerned about that!

    • Once they legalize it???????
      Then cocane,

      • Then “‘cocane what?  I don’t intend to start using Cocaine if weed is legal…lol.

        Stupid ppl abuse whether it is legal or not.  

    • This in no way discounts the seriousness of distracted driving. What it does is highlight the fact that pot impairs driving ability – to which I say “duh!” It doesn’t take much to figure out that pot impairs focus and reaction time.

      • No, Keith, controlled studies show pot does not impair reaction time. That’s alcohol.

        • Would love to read those studies showing that stoned people don’t have slowed reaction times.  Please provide sources.  Thx.

          • Safer driving doesn’t depend on reaction time, that’s a bogus concept. No driving test includes a provision for reaction time. If driving did depend on reaction time, almost everyone would make the wrong reaction, covering their face with their hands.

            You have more delay to reaction in the compound of your non formnula 1 tires and play in your steering and suspension than could possibly render any difference in reaction time caused by cannabis use relevant.

            You dont’ need a study to tell you common sense, but study after study concluded where there is a small difference in reaction time, it does not in practice manifest itself as an issue… “duh”. Hint: (I just told you why).

            This “study” is nothing more than propaganda. Another bogus and biased study, same as when they “proved” correlation with schizophrenia by polling patients in a mental hospital whether or not they’d ever smoked marijuana. They could have done the same for orange juice.

            What they lack here is a proper control group and a non biased sample.

          • Let me get this straight…you believe that the ability to react quickly and hit the brake in time to avoid a crash or quickly steer out of an impending accident has nothing to do with a person being a “safe driver”?  Maybe you should look at some studies done on the elderly and their falling reaction times, leading to increased car accidents.

            Exactly what kind of doctor are you?

            Further, I work in the area of schizophrenia so I KNOW you are providing false information about the studies done linking cannabis and schizophrenia.   If you had any first-hand knowledge of the disease or if you spent anytime in the ER, you would know that certain people cannot smoke cannabis, it makes them psychotic.  Something in their brain chemistry reacts to the drug.  Some people have only a short-term psychosis and get better; others go onto fit the criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia (based on the length of illness, negative and positive symptoms).  It is believed that these people have a high propensity toward having schizophrenia in the first place but there is no doubt that they cannot smoke cannabis and remain well.  Nobody had to “take a poll of patients in a mental hospital about their use of marijuana”, their freaked out friends and family tell all out it when the patient with psychosis starts saying the devil is trying to kill him/her.

          • Yeah wow, imagine that, a psychotic person having a psychotic episode.. and you use that argument to substantiate bogus studies that attempted to prove correlation be sampling patients at a mental hospital for “X”.

            You don’t even see the fallacy you commit yet think your resume, fallacious appeal to authority, can take place of sound logic. That’s funny!

            “I work in the area of schizophrenia ”

            What area would that be? Perhaps you can provide us with the co-ordinates.

            ” Something in their brain chemistry reacts to the drug”

            Something in the brain chemistry? Is that the technical term? Sounds like you’ve got it down to a science lol.

            “It is believed that these people ”

            It is believed jesus will return.. Did you know you worked in the field of religion?

            “you believe that the ability to react quickly and hit the brake in time to avoid a crash or quickly steer out of an impending accident has nothing to do with a person being a “safe driver”? ”

            You’re attempting to move the goal posts. We’re talking about reaction time. Tests show that for people who’ve never used the drug and aren’t accustomed to it, there will be a very slight delay in reaction time.. we’re talking a few milliseconds here.

            If “safe driving” for you, depends on a reaction time down to the millisecond level, then you’re not a safe driver. Your car can’t even respond that quickly because it has its own reaction time that swamps the biggest pot head’s slowest reaction time by orders of magnitude.

            Safe driving, I’m sure you can appreciate, means being aware and driving defensively, slowing down, giving yourself enough space, etc. It also means understanding the mechanics and physics of your vehicle, which you clearly do not. In your scenario where you’re stomping on the breaks and jerking the steering wheel in a millisecond’s time, basically saturating the contrability of the vehicle (you skidded and steered yourself right off the right in your panicked untrained instinctual reaction before you could even realize that you “overcorrected” and now lack the opportunity to recorrect because you’re in the ditch), did you even account for road conditions?

            Indeed, safe driving does NOT depend on instantaneous reaction time! This is why all non biased objective and controlled studies have shown that in practice this millisecond delay you speak of doesn’t materialize as problematic in the least.

            But that’s just logical thinking and cold hard facts, but you’d rather resort to fallacy.

          • Seeing how you are too dense to read my comment clearly, I will reiterate it for you…..the individuals were NOT psychotic prior to smoking the cannabis.  They had NEVER been psychotic…many were in their late teens.
            I have worked in acute adult mental health as a psychiatric nurse for more than 15 years.  It is the dopamine 2 receptors in the brain and a release of too much dopamine that are believed to play a large role in pychosis.  Any other questions you want to ask me, doctor?
            As for my belief that my ability to hit the brake quickly or steer out of a potential accident situation makes me a safer driver, I think it is alot more sound than your belief that you can control the way OTHER people drive.  Even if you maintain a safe distance, ultimately on a day when the roads are icy some idiot will cut inbetween you and the car that you are following behind safely.  I know all about the vehicle I drive.  I know not to hit the brake on ice but rather to steer out of problem.  Unfortunately, when you are driving in a city of million people that isn’t always easy and you need a “clear” head.
            You maligning me, my creditials and every study ever done isn’t going to change the fact that smoking a doobie right before getting behind the wheel isn’t a sound plan.  You want to believe it is okay for you….fine….but for godsakes, quit passing yourself off as a doctor.

          • Well then I guess in your professional capacity you can prove causality when all studies have failed to. You can substantiate the bogus studies that fallaciously demonstrated correlation at very best, yes, by polling people in a mental hospital. If only you knew how to undertake a proper study you could do so much..

            Otherwise, marijuana is very widely regarded for causing psychotic episodes lol…. everyone remembers those freak murders from the 60’s, and all those terrible songs about peace, love, and killing your neighbour. Oh, I know, now you’re going to tell us how weed is more potent now.

            You have no credibility at all. All you have is reefer madness. If I didn’t feel so sorry for you it would be hard not to laugh.

          • I love you, Dr. Davisu…

          • How to you make the jump from psychosis to “murders”.  If you did any research at all you would know that people who suffer from psychosis are no more likely to commit violent crimes that the rest of the population.
            Further, I never said that the incidence of cannabis-induced psychosis was widespread; I said it does occur and if you spent some time in a big city hospital emergency room, you’d see cases of it.

          • ” If you did any research at all you would know that people who suffer from psychosis are no more likely to commit violent crimes that the rest of the population.”

            So what you’re saying then is that marijuana cures murderous psychosis, rendering them safe and docile? Quite the wild claim. It seems to be in stark contrast to your reefer madness science. Have you done a study to substantiate this?

            How do I go from psychosis to murder? Because psychotic people are dangerous, duh. They don’t just murder people, they murder them in style, like cut off people’s heads on a greyhoud and eat their eyeballs. That’s probably just a side effect of standard pharmaceutical drugs though. You know, the ones you’re paid to distribute and administer?

            Even though you claim the odds of them comitting murder are no different, you would certainly hear about it when they do, and if weed were ever once a trigger you would damn well have heard that too. We have had only what, ten thousand years and more to have heard about that happening but so far.. not once.

            You clearly make it up as you go along anyway. As though you were observing them before and after to know they exhibited signs of psychosis prior to smoking, or only afterwards, and as though it’s so common for them to be hitting the bong at the hospital, under your lock and key.

            Your anectodal non qualified diagnosis is not of scientific statistical significance. You are qualified to change their bed pans, and the way you so carelessly throw about diagnoses around here it is plain to see who is playing doctor. But more so, I feel sorry for any patient that’s under your care. You’re brainwashed to treat every cannabis user as a psychotic and it’s part of the stigma they face for exercising their freedom from you.

            Is there any further reefer madness you’d care to breath life into while we’re at it?

          • I am done wth you and your crap, whoever you are.  If you can’t figure out that a person cutting someone’s head off on a bus is a once in 50 years event then I don’t know what to tell you.  As you for your maligning comments about nurses…I’ll you know they come into university with the highest high school marks of any facullty.  Should I had my intelligence just because it offends you?  Should I not learn about my specialty because I am not a physician?  BS.  If you truly are a doctor of a philosophy and have earned a PhD, you are not representing your education no your alma matar well by ridiculing people who disagree with you because they can’t possilby have your level of intelligence.  Meanwhile, you are the person who only embrances research if it is alignment with what you already believe.

          • Alcohol impairment (or other drug-related impairment, or any form of distracted driving) slows reaction time. That’s why it’s called an “impairment”. Here’s a definition for you:

            3. impairment – the condition of being unable to perform as a
            consequence of physical or mental unfitness; “reading disability”; “hearing impairment”

            If one’s usage is sufficient to impair one’s ability to stay focussed, one’s reaction time diminishes. Hence the warning labels on medications that make one drowsy that warn against driving or operating heavy machinery.

            I hope that “Dr.” is something other than “M.D.” as any medical Dr that doesn’t know this should not be prescribing drugs.

          • “Should I had my intelligence just because it offends you? ”

            Oooh, if only that made the least bit of sense, everything that followed would only have been half as hilarious.

            That said, your intelligence is offensive, or rather, the lack thereof. Please do feel free to hide your ignorance.

            You can cry over having your faculties and skills called into question as well. I merely point out what I’m directly observing, and it is not a fallacious ad hominem. You’ve played yourself off as an authority on the issue and yet you’ve only demonstrated ignorance.

            However, it is hypocritical to cry over it when you’ve been on the attack all along yourself. Speaking of adult coping skills, you could work on yours.

          • “Alcohol impairment (or other drug-related impairment, or any form of distracted driving) slows reaction time. That’s why it’s called an “impairment”. Here’s a definition for you:”
            That’s hilarious. You’re casting as wide a net as possible with your irresponsibly loose interpretation, such that strict adherance to your simplistic understanding of the term would render anyone and everyone permanently impaired. Yet, you wish your fears to be taken seriously? Laughable.

            By your foolish definition, an officer attempting to pull you over with flashing lights and sirens, no doubt distracting you, would therefore impair you, slowing your reaction time rendering it impossible for you to pull over.

            It then seems rather clear that your impairment is in absolutes, which is irrespective of your reaction time. While the world doesn’t work in absolutes, simpletons often do.

        • Link please! A statement like that requires substantiation.

          Anything that causes one to lose focus causes a delay in reaction time compared to someone solely focussed on a given task. I’m not talking about the physical reaction time to a direct stimulus to the nervous system; I’m talking aboiut the time between something happening and one becoming aware and responding.

          Texting and driving is far more dangerous than being just over the legal limit because you are not focussed on what is happening around you. You are not physically impaired, but your response time is shot because – even if you’re holding the phone at the top of the wheel so it’s more or less in your driving field of vision – your mind is elsewhere.

          Someone high on pot is not sharply focussed. They are easily distracted and will often take longer to react as a result. Once the brain engages their motor functions may be equivalent to when they are sober, but the danger lies in the lack of focus. The threshold at which the danger kicks in may be higher than that for alcohol becase of the lack of motor impairment, but it exists nonetheless.

          The fact that, like yourself, so many are unaware of or outright deny the danger is in itself cause for concern.

          • Try norml, plenty of information for you there. Be aware that asking for a source is simply a juvenile derailment tactic. You’re expected to be at least this tall to ride. This is considered common knowledge and certainly is public domain.

            “Anything that causes one to lose focus causes a delay in reaction time compared to someone solely focussed on a given task.”

            You deliberately expand the concept of a drug induced delayed reaction time to include basic distraction. You are not tall enough for this ride.. stay focused.

            You might be interested in another commonly known fact, that unless taken to absurd extremes for which no sane driver would want to be driving, a high driver compensates by hyper focusing, which is part of what makes them a safer driver. There are plenty of non biased and properly scientific studies that demonstrate that.

            You should take the time, using tools commonly available to everyone, at your very fingertips, to do some research on the subject matter which you’re attempting to discuss, such that you can demonstrate even a basic understanding of it.

            Conflating a real impairment by being far too high on pot, which wouldn’t get you off the couch in the first place, with being completely distracted with texting because you’re naturally braindead, destroys any credibility in your opinion.

            Distractions are not impairments, they are distractions. You consistantly pervert the literal sense with the figurative sense, but this isn’t poetry. It’s your apparently inability to recognise this that leaves you out in the cold, whereas others have the sense not to join you in your absurd interpretation.

          • No; you’re being deliberately overrestrictive in terminology because you don’t want anything impeding your pro-pot agenda. I frankly don’t care if you smoke it or not; just don’t get behind the wheel if you do.

            NORML is pro-pot & biased; kind of pointless to point someone there if a neutral, informed opinion is the desired outcome.

            Here’s what I’ve seen first-hand (mind you, it was in my university days): I didn’t toke but had friends who did. I’ve seen the driving behaviour of some straight and stoned (you’re right that most wouldn’t get behind the wheel when stoned, but there are always some who will), and I quickly learned not to go with them if they’d been smoking up. They thought it improved their driving; as a sober observer, I knew differently.

            That’s real-world, first-hand observation. I’ll take that over propaganda by stoners anytime.

      • Maybe moving from a message of ‘don’t smoke pot’ to ‘don’t toke and drive’ would work better. Total prohibition is unrealistic. It’s like the American intervention in Africa around HIV. Their strategy was not ‘Hey, use a condom’, it was ‘Hey, never have sex’. Which approach is likely to gain compliance and success?

        • I agree with your idea about not toking and driving but funny enough people refuse to accept that toking impairs their ability to drive in anyway.  They discount any study that might indicate otherwise. 
          As for your understanding of the interventions around HIV in Africa, it really wasn’t that simple.  Unfortunately, African men have an issue with any contraceptive “barriers”.  They won’t wear a condom.  That is why Bill Gates has spent so much time and money trying to come up with a barrier women could use to protect themselves without men knowing.  Now with the advent of the HIV vaccine, maybe we will turn a corner.

          • It isn’t that simple, but between the Catholic Church and the US government, grievous harm was done to to the effort to encourage the use of condoms (including female condoms/barriers) as a way of reducing the transmission of HIV. The Catholic Church and the US religious right have blood on their hands. Abstinence as a HIV prevention strategy is a crime against humanity, resulting in thousands of needless deaths.

        • The message should be to avoid taking ANY drug that impairs one’s focus and reaction time if one plans to drive. Whether that be alcohol, prescribed drugs, over-the-counter medication or illegal substances. We are being way too narrow in our focus. Drinkers may constitute the biggest single group of impaired drivers but they are definitely not alone in driving under the influence.

    • Distracted driving laws are in place in a number of provinces.   That won’t impact the fact that impaired driving causes accidents just like distracted driving does and needs to be curbed.

      • It’s self curbing. Because, as the studies have shown, it’s not like alcohol, where people are affected in such a way as to overestimate their ability, anybody who is too high to drive will not want to. If they are borderline, the stress of driving will act to sober them quickly. Even Carl Sagan wrote about that as Mr. X, and as scientist I find him far more credible than an “Insider” spouting reefer madness.

  3. I wasn’t aware this was a serious question requiring scientific inquiry.

    Jeepers, what next… sugar’s sweet and water is wet? LOL

    • Are you going to cite your sources, Phil, or do we have to take your word on these outlandish claims?

      • Would you want a “stoned” driver driving your kid’s school bus?  How would you feel if your doctor was stoned when he was doing your surgery?  I realize that you believe you actually perform better when stoned but isn’t possible that cannabis is not a performance-enhancing drug?  Afterall, isn’t that the arguement that Ross Rigliari used to keep his gold medal….that pot actually detracted from his performance rather than enhanced it so he REALLY deserved that medal…..and everyone said he was right.

          All you have is fear mongering and that’s ultimately a greater danger to the public good than would be a stonned school bus driver. What’s more terrifying is reactionaries like you setting public policy without a shred of logic or common sense.

          In terms of Cannabis being a performance enchancing drug, Ross Rebagliati can say what he likes, the fact is he won the damn medal. Same with Micheal Phelps. It’s obviously not steroids, which is the sort of performance enhancement we’re concerned with in sports competitions.. but if it improves their focus and concentration and helped them “be in the zone”, then it’s obviously beneficial to performance without giving them a cheating edge over someone who could just as easily meditate for a few hours, and who would pose no greater danger.

          You’re making some very false analogies in your attempt to fear monger, that’s intellectually dishonest.

          • Michael Phelps DID NOT test positive for cannabis.  He was using the bong after the olympics.  Seeing how the drug stays in your system for 30 days (something I know because I am an RN), Michael’s concentraction and focus was not enhanced by pot.  Nor did he get in “the zone” with it.  Perhaps, he had an endorphin rush like every other athlete does and that is how he got in the zone.
            As for me setting public policy and fear mongering without a shred of logic or common sense, read the article…this isn’t the first study that has indicated that smoking pot before driving resullts more car accidents.  I have nothing to do with the study or the article.  Why don’t you take a look at yourself and ask why am I so invested in making sure that stoned people are allowed to drive?  Are you the minister of that church where everyone smokes pot all day?

          • There’s an entire industry built around circumventing the ever increasing oppression drug testing. If anyone knows how it would be a professional althete. Studies also show that moderate use improves lung function *gasp*.

            But it’s good that you admit that athletes are “high”. Interesting. Clearly they should be banned from driving after sports.. and race car drivers? They should be on pharmaceutical drugs to maintain “chemical balance”.

            Your mentioned studies are bogus pseudo science. They serve to give ammunition to the blissfully ignorant, nothing more. Study after study has proven it’s not a factor in driving, actual real studies. Deal with it. You’re a nurse, you know nothing of the scientific method or how to conduct a proper experiment or study.


          • Feel free to cite your “study after study” (real studies) that show cannabis is “not a factor in driving.  I will do my uneducated best with my four-year science degree in nursing to follow the scientific method employed in each of these “non-psuedo-science studies”.  Can’t wait.

          • Thank you for the link.

        • Uh, I think GrayG was being sarcastic/ironic/sardonic there Healthcare.

  4. Johnny Fever: All right fellow babies, that was the Doors, and this is sort of Johnny Fever, kind of Doctor. And after… nine drinks, Venus Flytrap is catatonic, and I myself have personally just seen a giant pig. He is currently painting the walls of our lobby.

    Officer: He is obviously drunk, ladies and gentlemen.

    Johnny Fever: Yes, he is, and I’m not feeling badly myself.

    • Don’t give up your day job, comedian.

  5. Alcohol has always been the focus because it’s a legal, commonly abused substance, and one for which a non-invasive roadside test exists. However, increasingly other substances are being used by people who then get behind the wheel despite being in an altered state of consciousness that will impact their ability to drive. Given our laws, we can’t demand the kind of invasive sobriety test that would be required to prove non-alcohol impairment without some other pretty substantial evidence (such as causing an accident).

    I’m normally an advocate of the rights of the individual, but driving is a privilege and one that puts others at risk if the privilege is abused. It may be time that we decide, as a society, that the right of the innocent to be protected from idiots who drive under the influence of whatever supercedes privilege. Police should be able to hold someone and demand a blood test for the same threshold of suspicion as for a roadside breathalyzer. Such should be an accepted condition for the priviege of holding a driver’s licence.

    • Yeah let’s advocate for a nanny state over personal responsibility that we already have laws for. “I normally advocate for individual rights but in this one exception I’m all for total oppression”… give it a rest.

      You want to talk about priviledge and putting others at risk? How about we check the conditions of the breaks on your car, or the tire tread? I bet you have no clue. You’re a far greater potential danger to others behind the wheel on your best day then I would be after smoking a joint.

      • So if Keith’s tire treads are good and his brakes are fine, are you going to stop smoking and driving…hmmm….didn’t think so.

        •  If I stop smoking and driving are you going to learn how to maintain your vehicle so you can at least know whether or not you can rely on it or if you’re just putting everyone at risk?

          Are you going to turn off your traction control and ABS and learn how to actually handle your vehicle in various road conditions? Hmmmm…… didn’t think so.

          Do you know what happens when a control loop saturates? It does just like you would do in that, per your opinion, super critical last ditch millisecond that all safe drivers guard as a buffer (extreme sarcasm), puts its hands in front of its face and braces for impact.

          When is the last time you checked your tire pressure, even? “You can do that?” You probably shouldn’t even be on the road sober, it clearly terrifies you, and fear is the natural reaction of the a primitive mind when it doesnt’ understand how things work.

          • You really are fixated on this whole car maintenance thing…are you using pot to self medicate due to an OCD problem?

          • It’s amusing how a professional drug dealer like yourself sees a potential diagnosis in everyone. Who saves the chidlren from you?

          • Gee, I am going up the world, from irresponsible car owner and stupid nurse to professional drug dealer…..I am getting the feeling that you aren’t really a medical doctor….you have a decidedly negative view of prescription medication. 

          • It’s worth recognizing how you yourself don’t find a doctor who is not entirely enamoured with the pharmaceutical drug trade the least bit believable. But, scientist that you are, oddly jumped to the conclusion that I was a medical doctor in the first place. Are you sure you’re trained in the art of critical thinking? It would seem not.

      • Well, you might drive a poorly maintained car, but mine is regularly serviced and brakes (note correct spelling “Dr”) tires and other safety-related items properly maintained. I even know what that stalk on the left side of the wheel is for, and how to use it.

        You see I understand the concept of personal responsibility – something too few comprehend these days. Everyone thinks they have the right to do as they please without regard to its impact on others. Responsibility, in the minds of all too many, is for the other person.

        I don’t really give a damn about what others choose to do as long as any harmful consequences are limited to themselves. But once you get behind the wheel, it is your responsibility to drive in a manner that minimizes the risk to others. I don’t claim to be perfect, or expect others to be – but I don’t drive if I’ve taken any substances, legal or not, that may impact my ability to focus on my driving. Nor do I use a phone GPS or anything else that takes my attention off my driving. The radio is my only distraction.

        Stop being an advocate for irresponsibility and idiocy.

        • You enjoy a peculiar cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy which is rampant amongst the ignorant.

          You advocate for personal responsibility and yet you obviously don’t believe in it because you only advocate it in so far as facilitates your undermining of it. Unlike you, my arguments are consistant and I show no such confusion.

          Your every statement is a contradiction that you’re apparently oblivious to while you go on about focus.

          “Nor do I use a phone GPS or anything else that takes my attention off my driving. The radio is my only distraction”.

          Car radios have caused countless accidents, they’re a total distraction, and they don’t operate themselves. You selfish monster, think of the children!

          • LOL! Talk about cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy; go back and read your own comments.

             Hey, no one’s perfect, but I do my best to minimize distractions – and everyone has some form of distraction. I listen to the radio – got it set to one station and leave it there. Ditto the volume. I enjoy my music, but it’s a low-grade, passive distraction that does not require constant use of hands or eyes. Better than being lulled into semi-consciousness by the drone of the engine. Nice try, but like your earlier references to my supposed lack of vehicle maintenance, you failed miserably. (BTW – where’s your apology? It’s good manners to apologize after slandering someone. ;-))

            I spend two hrs a day in my car; I enjoy driving and I like cars. So I’m in tune with what’s going on around me and being involved in the driving process – so much so that I’ve never even owned an automatic tranny, as I prefer the extra engagement of the manual shifter. Plus the clutch and the shifter are about the only exercise I get given how much time I spend behind the wheel. LOL!

            I live in Brampton – home, apparently, of the worst drivers in Canada. Aside from the direct risk of sharing the road with them, I and other good drivers in the community subsidize the idiots by paying the highest insurance rates in Canada. So yeah, I get my nose out of joint when people like you try to defend the indefensible. No one should drive while in an artificially induced altered state of consciousness.

  6. I once had a friend who used to drive around baked all the time, and on the few occasions I foolishly got in the car with them, I was terrified the whole time. Crazy driving, just crazy. How they are still alive I don’t know! What’s worse is that they are endangering others. I don’t hang out with this person any more so haven’t been in that moral quandary in years, but hopefully they’ve shaped up in this respect… 

    • You should go to prison for not doing your duty and stopping this crazy friend from putting others at risk. But you weren’t stupid, it was actually the alcohol that impaired your judgement.

      • Oh give it a rest…you can’t send people to prison because they made the error of getting in the car with someone who was impaired.

        • Suddenly there’s a limit to your nannying? Are you sure? Pay attention now sober one, the argument wasn’t that he should go to prison for getting in the car himself, it was that he should go to prison for allowing his super stonned crazy friend to drive (thereby allowing others to be endangered). Really, this is your attention to detail, ability to focus and concentrate? Imagine if you only had a millisecond to respond, surely you’d have done better then.

          • If he was a young person, you can hardly blame him for not phoning the police on his friend….as for my “nannying”…it doesn’t extend to expecting teenagers to turn their friends into the police but then maybe you aren’t the mother of a teen.

          • So youth has a free pass to endangering others because you have a teenager? LOL… Mother of the year right here. A little consistency in your beliefs would go a long way in making you half credible.

          • If a teen turned their friend into the police for driving while high they would have to leave the school they attend because life there would be unbearable.  I don’t have to be the mother of a teen to know that.  I don’t expect a teenager to do the job of an adult.  Children aren’t adults, they aren’t expected to take on the responsibilities of adults or bear the burdens of adults. 
            If an adult reports an inebriated driver…a neighbor for instance and that neighbor in turn makes that adults life hell, then an adult accepts that risk…a child doesn’t have the foresight or the coping mechanisms to deal with those choices or the fallout from them.  So, would I give a kid a pass on not reporting his friend….you bet. 

          • You’ve outted yourself as a coward and a hypocrite, where you’d have a nanny state take over from the slightest bit of basic personal responsibility that all kids are taught from early on.

            “If a strange van pulls up behind you, little jessica, just go quietly…. we’ll issue an amber alert and save you”.

            This is so ingrained in your mentality that you automatically leap to the conclusion of “calling the police on your friend”, rather than simply “not letting him drive”. You see no other possible alternative, yet claim to be a trained scientist?

            How simplistic, to think in terms of such absolutes.

            But you’re right, teenagers of driving age are just “children” with “no responsibility or coping skills”. lol

            They don’t work, they don’t pay taxes…they don’t have to obey the law at all, they never pay rent. It’s a wonder how America was built (other than slaves), seeing as they used to be married with homesteads and children of their own at that age. In fact they still have children at that age. All that’s really changed is people like you keep removing opportunities from them, because YOU can’t cope. Disgusting.

          • Listen Mrs. Glenn Beck, you have no idea who I am or what I do but I would do in this instance so I will tell you what I DID do when my daughter told me her friend was driving drunk…I called the kid’s parents. I have never shirked my responsibilities as a parent or a citizen.  I just know there is more than one way to deal with a situation.  I have raised another person’s unwanted child so before you go making your crappy judgements about people, maybe you should take a moment to think.

          • You’re nearly babbling incoherently. Smoke a doober and chillax lady.

            If you know there are other options than calling the police, why did you then base your argument on it being the sole option?

            A little consistency goes a long way in estabilishing credibility. Thus far it seems like you just want to eat your cake and have it too.

          • Motherof3…You are telling me to “chillax”…did you read your own comments where you suggested that a person ‘should go to prison” because they didn’t report their friend for driving impaired when they were young….then you spewed a bunch of crap about pioneers and slaves and “America” even though this is the site for a Canadian online magazine.
            I have raised three children…two are now successful adults…I am going to give you some unsolicited and I am going to guess unwelcome advice…”chillax yourself.”  No kid is open and honest with their parent if they think he/she is going to go ballistic on their head and start insisting they report their friends to the cops.

  7. A better study would ask how many people are brought in for impaired driving but blow zero on a breathalyzer. I expect the number is very low. This study may have found dope smokers were 92% more likely to be in a serious accident but what are the chances of someone not on anything being in a serious accident. The problem is that the dopers are probably mostly youngish males who are more likely to be in accidents in any event. The study has to control for age, sex, distractions and time of accident to be of any use. The study would then be able to tell us what’s the chance that a 21 year old guy who’s sober vs. drunk vs been smoking dope gets into a serious accident.

    • Yes! It’s so biased!
      I’m all for accepting feasible evidence but this study is just using biased information in order to further its own agenda. I hope at least people realize this and think critically before they take this as fact (although I doubt it). This information is useless in and of itself until it is actually compared to something. Perhaps 92% of pot smokers are more likely to be in a serious accident but where does that leave all the pot smokers who drove and didn’t? There would most likely be no information on them. Besides, who are they comparing these 92% to? Useless.

  8. I used to smoke pot before driving and in my case (not that I advise this) it undoubtedly improved my driving.  This study does not account for how high the driver is.  Some people probably dive while they’re tripping balls.  If you get really high you can risk falling asleep at the wheel, anxiety and even poor vision due to changes in ocular pressure.  High people tend to drive slower, exercise more precaution, look further ahead, not rush, abandon aggressive behavior and I find myself more engaged by the activity.  I do not drive high anymore, it sets a bad example and is only effective with extremely cautious and responsible behavior.  This study does not examine experienced users who exercise responsible behavior and extreme caution.  This is a study of most people who drive while stoned and that’s just not fair to the drug.  DON”T DRIVE WHILE HIGH, even if you can.  You set a bad example for those that can not.

    • “DON”T DRIVE WHILE HIGH, even if you can. You set a bad example for those that can not. ”  

      Faulty reasoning like yours is what sets a bad example. The world doesn’t function on absolutes. Driving non high doesn’t set an example for anybody, unless you think you have an audience…


    • Yes…stoned drivers tend to drive slow….really slow and that isn’t safe either.  Oh and “extreme caution”, isn’t that just another term for paranoia cause your high?

      •  No people who don’t understand the mechanics of a moving mass on the road are the dangers that “drive dangerously slow”. We’re not talking about driving dangerously slow, we’re talking about “Slow” as in “not fast.

        Extreme caution means extreme caution. It’s realized from paranoia what does it matter, the result is a cautious driver, and isn’t that what you want on the road? Or do you seriously think being sober is enough by itself. You can speed a little and pass on the shoulder….. why not.. you’re sober.

        You’re displaying difficulty maintaining perspective in a sober state. In fact, you seem a little imbalanced. Have you been dipping into the pharmaceutical candy at work?

        • I think I have handle on why you have to drive stoned.  Otherwise, you can’t deal with how “terrible” the sober drivers on the road drive not to mention the sorry state of all of their vehicles.  I get it…the pot helps you cope.

          • Your ad hominem is laughable. Yes, pot in fact helps people cope, apparently there’s someothing wrong with that. I guess that’s a threat to your job description.

            You must think road rage is a joke? But you have a pharmaceutical to help them with that don’t you… it’s OK to drive drugged as long as it’s with pharmaceuticals. Self serving short sighted hypocrites like you disgust me.

          • Well, I think I have enough of the compliments…you sure do know how to turn a person’s head.  Good luck in your practice.

  9. Using any drugs like pot, marijuana, prescription drugs, alcohol do not go with Driving.

    If you are a pot user pot it is the least  of the drugs to be concermed with.

  10. Been driving stoned on weed on weed for years….no prob
    I would never drive drunk tho….thats a feather trigger, loaded shotgun!!!

  11. lol…o yeh

  12. Driving at 5km over the speed limit also doubles your chance of being in a collision. But driving 5km over the speed limit usually doesn’t even get you a speeding ticket. 

    Alcohol increases crash risk by approximately 5x at the legal limit of 0.05, 25x at an alcohol level of 0.08 and 80x at a level of 0.15.http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/alcohol-and-health-problems-a48359#ixzz1m6Sw3no8

    • I don’t think any rational person would argue with your contention that speeding causes accidents, alcohol intoxication causes accidents…so why is it so difficult to believe that driving while high might cause accidents?

      • Because it deals in the most ignorant of absolutes and as such discredits itself entirely.

        It’s little more than sensationalist propaganda serving the agenda of prohibition and continued prejudice. There is zero objectivity to it, zero balance, and zero context that would lend it any realistic perspective so as to explain why their findings are so drastically different from any other study that is all of those things.  

        Were you at all of an actual scientific background you’d be immune to such nonsense. Shame on your for being such a willing component of it.

        You might think you’re doing good, but when ignorance you support gets kids chased down by police and shot to death in their own home in front of their parents like happened in new york this week, you might find reason to reflect on that. In the meantime, I’m sure you’ve got just the pill to help you sleep at night, don’t you.

        You know, increased humidity probably also doubles your odds of being in an accident.. “OH noo…we need a law we need a regulation… curb the insanity”.

        Didn’t your science degree teach you about lying with statistics?

      •  Dana, you neglected to mention one *crucial* detail: exactly where was the driving being done?
        In fact, the study you link to is meaningless. Here’s why. First, the conclusions talk about “speeding” as if the study is about *all* speeding environments. In actuality, a 5km excess in speed — on a highway — is imperceptible, while, on a city street, it may be the critical factor in a serious accident.
        Secondly, the study fails to even describe the following as controlled factors:
        – was the roadway divided or undivided
        – was the neighborhood residential or commercial
        – how many points of entry per km did each roadway have
        – was the roadway restricted to passenger vehicles or not
        – was the population density of all neighborhoods identical
        – did the same volume of traffic per hour pass through all streets examined….
        … and I can probably think of a dozen more questions that are unanswered. I’m in favor of slowing down drivers; but incomplete science won’t do it.

  13. goodhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5__TLjLQtI&feature=colike

  14. >smoking pot does not make you a better driver

    Where has anyone said that it *does?*

  15. Yet another attack on pot smokers, I see?  Shame on you when there are criminals running our government.  Besides, I know a LOT of pot smokers who also happen to be drivers.  They are LONG-TIME pot smokers and guess what?  they drive BETTER then a LOT of drivers out there.  Quit being so biased.

Sign in to comment.