Slog Comments
Private to NPR and KPLU
2
How dare Mr. Holden accost NPR (or PRI or APM or CBC for that matter).
If they did what he suggested, they wouldn't enjoy their jobs-for-life.
There's a sound reason why they are awarded those jobs-for-life, dood!
You know too many other Ameritards who receive jobs-for-life?
If they did what he suggested, they wouldn't enjoy their jobs-for-life.
There's a sound reason why they are awarded those jobs-for-life, dood!
You know too many other Ameritards who receive jobs-for-life?
5
An authentic democrat always responds with the facts --- the typical rightwinger always responds with ad hominem attacks.
Care to differ?
Care to differ?
7
Why has no one addressed the FACT that SCIENCE shows that cannabis improves driving ability for some? Repeatedly government funded studies have proven this FACT with SCIENTIFIC methodology, replicated by peers etc.... This is one such government funded study.
http://davidbearmanmd.com/docs/Cann&Driv…
Dominic, this has nothing to do with patients or I 502.. Could you address this FACT with a response based in science?
http://davidbearmanmd.com/docs/Cann&Driv…
Dominic, this has nothing to do with patients or I 502.. Could you address this FACT with a response based in science?
8
@7) Your "FACT" is contradicted by science. Last month I reported:
The science that does exist shows significant potential for impairment among drivers over 5ng/mL. "At concentrations between 5 and 10 ng/mL approximately 75-90% of the observations were indicative of significant impairment in every performance test," reported Ramaekers et al in 2006.
Likewise, Grotenhermen et al found in 2005: "The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL."
9
Then science disputes science, cause my studies are equally as good as your studies. Ties or stalemates should go to the least restrictive solution when there is no resolution, eh? Your quoted studies do NOT address the fact that driving improves for some. Repeating yourself does not address the fact that SOME drivers are not impaired, they actually improve.
Re, Grotenhermen.."Apparently" is not definitive, it is suggestive only.
Re Ramaekers..Up to 25% may possibly be in the group of IMPROVED drivers.
Is it fair to penalize those of us who may drive better using incomplete statistics?
Re, Grotenhermen.."Apparently" is not definitive, it is suggestive only.
Re Ramaekers..Up to 25% may possibly be in the group of IMPROVED drivers.
Is it fair to penalize those of us who may drive better using incomplete statistics?
10
From ONE of the studies which state driving improvement....
When it comes to cannabis safety, we have (1) the findings of the FDA by Administrative
Law Judge Young, (2) the FDA's approval of Marinol (synthetic 9 THC), (3) Marinol
(dranabinol) is far more dysphoric than cannabis, but driving is permissible. This finding
on the dysphoria with Marinol is per GW Pharmaceuticals (GW is the manufacturer of
Sativex - tincture of cannabis - which was approved for sale by Health Canada two or
three weeks ago and will soon be distributed by Bayer). This is because the
cannabinidiols (CBDs) in cannabis counter the euphoric impact of THC. Marinol is all
THC. One of the best supports for the safety of cannabis is the fact that Marinol is used
by tens of thousands, and with the approval of the FDA.
When it comes to cannabis safety, we have (1) the findings of the FDA by Administrative
Law Judge Young, (2) the FDA's approval of Marinol (synthetic 9 THC), (3) Marinol
(dranabinol) is far more dysphoric than cannabis, but driving is permissible. This finding
on the dysphoria with Marinol is per GW Pharmaceuticals (GW is the manufacturer of
Sativex - tincture of cannabis - which was approved for sale by Health Canada two or
three weeks ago and will soon be distributed by Bayer). This is because the
cannabinidiols (CBDs) in cannabis counter the euphoric impact of THC. Marinol is all
THC. One of the best supports for the safety of cannabis is the fact that Marinol is used
by tens of thousands, and with the approval of the FDA.
11
BTW, Dominic, have you actually talked to, as in interviewed anY of the study authors or participants? I have...;-D Your writing suggests this, but I have never heard you state this as a fact nor have I seen a quote used from your dialog with any study author or participant. Please elucidate for us. Have you actually talked to the ones doing the research?
12
Likewise, this seems to negate hyour arguement..
Limited epidemiological studies indicate that serum concentrations of THC below
10 ng/ml are not associated with an elevated accident risk. A comparison of meta-analyses of experimental studies on
the impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in the serum of
7–10 ng/ml is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of
0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range. Conclusions This analysis offers an
empirical basis for a per se limit for THC that allows identification of drivers impaired by cannabis. The limited
epidemiological data render this limit preliminary.
Limited epidemiological studies indicate that serum concentrations of THC below
10 ng/ml are not associated with an elevated accident risk. A comparison of meta-analyses of experimental studies on
the impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in the serum of
7–10 ng/ml is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of
0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range. Conclusions This analysis offers an
empirical basis for a per se limit for THC that allows identification of drivers impaired by cannabis. The limited
epidemiological data render this limit preliminary.
16
A comparison of meta-analyses of experimental studies on the impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in the serum of 7–10 ng/ml is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range.
Serum concentration =/= whole blood concentration. For THC, serum concentration is roughly twice as high as whole blood. In other words, you could re-write the above to say " impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in whole blood of 3.5-5 ng/ml is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range."
The limit proposed in 502 is 5 ng/ml in whole blood.
So, you've just pointed out that 502 conforms to the best available data (peer-reviewed, multiple sources, enough to produce a good meta-analysis) on THC and impairment.
Serum concentration =/= whole blood concentration. For THC, serum concentration is roughly twice as high as whole blood. In other words, you could re-write the above to say " impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in whole blood of 3.5-5 ng/ml is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range."
The limit proposed in 502 is 5 ng/ml in whole blood.
So, you've just pointed out that 502 conforms to the best available data (peer-reviewed, multiple sources, enough to produce a good meta-analysis) on THC and impairment.
17
I really enjoy it when someone from the Strangler tells real journalists how to write a news story, when most everything on these pages is filched from other publications and reformatted with someone's opinion. It's the kind of 'reporting' that showed us so convincingly why we needed a monorail and didn't need a tunnel...
19
#9-13: There's a big difference between "science" (Dominic's citations) and "some bro writing stuff" (your link).
Also, are you seriously that passionate about your "right" to drive stoned? That's pretty fucked up. You'd look much more sympathetic if you say, "I-502 will cost me thousands of dollars due to increased marijuana sales competition."
Also, are you seriously that passionate about your "right" to drive stoned? That's pretty fucked up. You'd look much more sympathetic if you say, "I-502 will cost me thousands of dollars due to increased marijuana sales competition."
Comments (20) RSS